Comment by bonoboTP
11 hours ago
Ok, where will you shift the goalposts if next year AI will also be superhuman in didactically explaining proofs to humans?
11 hours ago
Ok, where will you shift the goalposts if next year AI will also be superhuman in didactically explaining proofs to humans?
AI capabilities keep getting bumpier and bumpier. There's no reason to believe it won't stall out on a front that it is already quite bad at (correctly formalizing in human language)
“LLM progress will stall in some area at some point” — which is my interpretation of what you wrote — feels particularly unfalsifiable
The negated statement --- that LLM progress will never stall in any area --- seems trivially falsifiable, so why is the GP's statement unfalsifiable?
2 replies →
It's a new technology and we're figuring out important distinctions as we go, nothing necessarily intellectually dishonest about that.
If shifting goalposts makes AI better, why not shift them?
Because making AI better is orthogonal to making human lives better. We are quite literally racing towards artificial superintelligence without any serious plan or preparation for the societal impacts that will have.
I don't think that is the thing that makes AI better. In the metaphor the idea is that someone scored a goal and then people retroactively shift the goalpost to say it doesn't count as a goal.
Is there any evidence it does? Without that it simply feels like poor debate.