However I do feel a lot of this comes down to facts about the world now, eg whether Claude Opus is doing anything interesting, which are in principle places where you could provide some evidence or ideas, along the lines of the detail that I gave you.
My read so far is you are just saying “maybe it fizzles out” which is not going to persuade anyone who disagrees. Sure, “maybe”, especially if you don’t put probabilities on anything; that statement is not falsifiable.
> The problem with talking likelihood is that it's an interpretation game
I am open to updating my model in response to a causal argument, if you care to give more detail. I view likelihoods as the only way to make these sorts of conversations concrete enough that anyone could hope to update each other’s model.
However I do feel a lot of this comes down to facts about the world now, eg whether Claude Opus is doing anything interesting, which are in principle places where you could provide some evidence or ideas, along the lines of the detail that I gave you.
My read so far is you are just saying “maybe it fizzles out” which is not going to persuade anyone who disagrees. Sure, “maybe”, especially if you don’t put probabilities on anything; that statement is not falsifiable.
> The problem with talking likelihood is that it's an interpretation game
I am open to updating my model in response to a causal argument, if you care to give more detail. I view likelihoods as the only way to make these sorts of conversations concrete enough that anyone could hope to update each other’s model.