After all the worries about people publishing things they shouldn’t, I found it very surprising to see Oliver advocating for publishing when John wanted to hold back, combined with the request for incremental explanations of progress to justify continued funding.
John seems to have set a very high alternative proof bar here—do things other people can’t do. That seems… certainly good enough, if anything too stringent? We need to find ways to allow deep, private work.
To be clear, the discussion about feedback loops was mostly about feedback loops for me (and David), i.e. outside signals for us to make sure we haven’t lost contact with reality. This was a discussion about epistemics, not a negotiation over preconditions of funding.
After all the worries about people publishing things they shouldn’t, I found it very surprising to see Oliver advocating for publishing when John wanted to hold back, combined with the request for incremental explanations of progress to justify continued funding.
John seems to have set a very high alternative proof bar here—do things other people can’t do. That seems… certainly good enough, if anything too stringent? We need to find ways to allow deep, private work.
To be clear, the discussion about feedback loops was mostly about feedback loops for me (and David), i.e. outside signals for us to make sure we haven’t lost contact with reality. This was a discussion about epistemics, not a negotiation over preconditions of funding.