Yea, I guess I was a little unclear on whether your post constituted a bet offer where people could simply reply to accept as I did, or if you were doing specific follow-up to finalize the bet agreements. I see you did do that with Nathan and Tomás, so it makes sense you didn’t view our bet as on. It’s ok, I was more interested in the epistemic/forecasting points than the $1,000 anyway. ;)
I commend you for following up and for your great retrospective analysis of the benchmark criteria. Even though I offered to take your bet, I didn’t realize just how problematic the benchmark criteria were for your side of the bet.
Most importantly, it’s disquieting and bad news that long timelines are looking increasingly implausible. I would have felt less worried about a world where you were right about that.
Congratulations. However, unless I’m mistaken, you simply said you’d be open to taking the bet. We didn’t actually take it with you, did we?
Yea, I guess I was a little unclear on whether your post constituted a bet offer where people could simply reply to accept as I did, or if you were doing specific follow-up to finalize the bet agreements. I see you did do that with Nathan and Tomás, so it makes sense you didn’t view our bet as on. It’s ok, I was more interested in the epistemic/forecasting points than the $1,000 anyway. ;)
I commend you for following up and for your great retrospective analysis of the benchmark criteria. Even though I offered to take your bet, I didn’t realize just how problematic the benchmark criteria were for your side of the bet.
Most importantly, it’s disquieting and bad news that long timelines are looking increasingly implausible. I would have felt less worried about a world where you were right about that.