@emilowk Your crass scheme of throwing money at the problem is totally working, as this has been bumped up the queue and will probably get taken up in the next week or so.

@Jgalt Interesting, thanks. Given that we're (I think) counting Trump's fence as wall, I think it's fair to count Elon's sewer as tunnel. Somebody's got to drain something.

@Of_Course_I_Still_Love_You wrote:

I don't understand this point system yet


@Matthew_Barnett Taking "no evidence" as a synonym for the other given words seems fairly dubious to me. "No evidence" is often used in a fairly weaselly way, as we've seen during the pandemic (e.g. when there was "no evidence" of masks preventing COVID-19 even when it was fairly obvious that they were very likely to.)

On second thought, from [this paper](https://cdn.openai.com/papers/Learning_Transferable_Visual_Models_From_Natural_Language.pdf) it looks like: > The largest ResNet model, RN50x64, took 18 days to train on 592 V100 GPUs while the largest Vision Transformer took 12 days on 256 V100 GPUs. According to [this](https://images.nvidia.com/content/technologies/volta/pdf/437317-Volta-V100-DS-NV-US-WEB.pdf), in single-precision the V100 does 14-15 TFLOPS. Then according to OpenAI's [somewhat heuristic formula](https://openai.com/blog/ai-and-compute/) Number o...

Then I think we should also retitle this one to be more clear that it is on Jan. 3, and perhaps add a note that this is pre-runoff results.

@(Sylvain) My personal feeling is that it's pretty clear that the question was targeting "outer solar system", but there may be some ambiguity as to how to interpret that phrase. I suggest that @Tidearis, the question author, choose between: (a) "Outer solar system" is construed to include the asteroid belt, so this resolves positive, or (b) "Outer solar system" is construed to not include the asteroid belt, in which case we edit the question to clarify this, and it stays open. I don't see a good case for taking a literalist interpretation of the tex...

There's a big list of "What AI can and can't do" here:


if we had some faith that this will continue to be updated, and with some fixed methodology that was interesting, it could make fodder for some interesting AI questions.

@ghabs @Tamay

@Roko @beala I personally think we can have both scale and care, as long as the moderation system is built to scale well also. That's not the case now but could be done, and we plan to do it. I think effort would be required either to carefully craft and edit questions OR to check lots of questions and sort the wheat from the chaff. But the former seems to be personally much more satisfying and with less time wasted.

So this is everyone's last chance to affect their points on this question even though it is closed, which is an unusual circumstance. If you're asking yourself whether it's worth spending $$ for just "meaningless" internet points, I'll remind you that [Desai, Critch and Russell](https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~russell/papers/nips18-pareto.pdf) answer the question > Whose values will the first super-human AI systems serve? with a theorem showing that under (surely innocuous and self-evident) assumptions > Theorem 4 shows that a Pareto optimal policy...

Just a general comment as to how crazy it is that we need an axis extending from -20 to +20 to report a GDP growth rate.

Congrats to all! I hope/assume you all consider the good you're doing the world, and the admiration you're accruing, a bigger prize than the $$$.

I can finally report that this resolves negatively. Price and Shulman did not agree on the resolution, so it went to the committee. The two salient points: * Aguirre & Tegmark agreed that they both had less than 50% credence in the given proposition. (Rees did not formally weigh in.) * Aguirre & Tegmark both also state that this does *not* necessarily imply other propositions, such as that LENR is unworthy of funding, because even at a much lower credence level than 50% it could be very worthwhile as high-risk high-payoff research. (On the other hand ...

I'm holding off on the other LRT1.X questions as it's conceivable that the two numbers will be close enough that we can hold our nose and average or pick one without it mattering much.

@AlejandroZerboni wrote:


I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Any thoughts? I'd lean 'yes.'