it didn't because it wasn't released. As soon as it was actually released (chatGPT) it obviously did, so the general point was clearly true
The concern I heard was that releasing it would start an arms race for AGI, which I think it clearly did
Clearly state "we could both verifiably slow down, which you might want to do given that we're ahead & have way more compute. If you don't agree (or defect later), we'll just immediately resume and win" Ideally also…
Unilateral disarmament doesn't work though. If Anthropic is worried about this, just letting OpenAI win does seem genuinely worse.
The claim I remember was that releasing it would start an arms race for AGI, which was absolutely true
There's an objection here when you get to tiny numbers, but surely you wouldn't get ice cream if there was a 10+% chance to get hit by a car? I think he's saying that >1% or even >10% chunk of your probability mass…
The claim I remember was that releasing it would start an arms race for AGI, which I think it clearly did
it didn't because it wasn't released. As soon as it was actually released (chatGPT) it obviously did, so the general point was clearly true
The concern I heard was that releasing it would start an arms race for AGI, which I think it clearly did
Clearly state "we could both verifiably slow down, which you might want to do given that we're ahead & have way more compute. If you don't agree (or defect later), we'll just immediately resume and win" Ideally also…
Unilateral disarmament doesn't work though. If Anthropic is worried about this, just letting OpenAI win does seem genuinely worse.
The claim I remember was that releasing it would start an arms race for AGI, which was absolutely true
There's an objection here when you get to tiny numbers, but surely you wouldn't get ice cream if there was a 10+% chance to get hit by a car? I think he's saying that >1% or even >10% chunk of your probability mass…
The claim I remember was that releasing it would start an arms race for AGI, which I think it clearly did