I have looked at it, but ignored it when commenting on this post, which should stand on its own (or as part of a sequence).
Fair. Fwiw I’d be interested in your review of the followup as a standalone.
Here’s the review, though it’s not very detailed (the post explains why):
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/dNzhdiFE398KcGDc9/testing-the-natural-abstraction-hypothesis-project-update?commentId=spMRg2NhPogHLgPa8
Yup, makes sense. Thank you!
I have looked at it, but ignored it when commenting on this post, which should stand on its own (or as part of a sequence).
Fair. Fwiw I’d be interested in your review of the followup as a standalone.
Here’s the review, though it’s not very detailed (the post explains why):
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/dNzhdiFE398KcGDc9/testing-the-natural-abstraction-hypothesis-project-update?commentId=spMRg2NhPogHLgPa8
Yup, makes sense. Thank you!