maybe we can ask @gwern. 

Gwern, at what point would you say you were 'wrong' and how would that make you 'update'?

what line would you agree on today @garrison ?  At what point would you actually 'update'?

So far, am seeing a lot of people contesting the 'object' and not a lot of people updating.  Which is kinda my point.  Concordance with the group consensus seems to have become a higher priority than rationalism on this forum.

Does your lack of reply mean you haven't updated at all @Connor Leahy ?

Again, the question isn't even who was right about what, it was 1) are people on this website capable of updating, and b) are the other people on this website capable of holding each other accountable to rationalist principles.

So far, not seeing a lot of evidence of either, but by all means, happy to be proven wrong!

There are many math and coding benchmarks where models from DeepSeek, Ali baba and tencent are now leading, and definitely leading what was SOTA a year ago.  If you don’t want to take my word for it I can dig them up. 

The fact that their models are on par with openAI and anthropic but it’s open source.

There are people from the safety community arguing for jail for folks who download open source models. 

You can’t have it both ways.  Either open source is risky and an acceleration and should be limited/punished, or there is no acceptable change to timelines from open source AI and hence it doesn’t need to be regulated.  

Does that make sense? 

ok so what criteria would you use to suggest that your statements/gwern’s statements were falisified?

What line can we agree on today, while it feels uncertainty, so that later we’re not still fighting over terminology and more working off the same ground truth?

Sorry for my tone.  Yours reads as very defensive. 

So you admit you were wrong?

How have you updated your views on China or what we should do as a result? 

Do you disagree that entities in China are now pushing the state of the art in an open source way?

If you disagree, then sure, you don't have to update.  But I'd argue you aren't paying attention.

If you agree, then how did you update?

If your point is that using 'use vs them' framing makes thing worse, that may or may not be correct, but from the perspective of existential risk the object level determination re China is irrelevant, vs what "they" represent.  A repeated game where defection by anyone one of N players leads to ruin (from the doomer perspective) and where folks in China just represent one of a very large set.

Does that make sense?

are you saying they accept your frame?  because it appears they do not.

exactly