I can’t tell if it is purposeful that this is set up in an adversarial/ winner-take-all kind of way. It’s really off-putting to me, and seems to encourage everyone being out for themselves, rather than collaboration. Particularly for such an inherently collaborative product. Maybe Nate and Eliezer just expect cooperation to fail?
Anyways, if people DO want to attempt some kind of collaboration… EDIT- Don’t join my Facebook group, join plex’s Discord linked in the comment below instead
We pay out $20,000 per run for the first 10 runs, as quality runs are received, not necessarily all to one group. If more than one group demonstrates the ability to scale, we might ask more than one group to contribute to the $1M 100-run dataset. Them cooperating with each other would hardly be a problem. That said, a lot of the purpose of the 10-run trial is exactly to locate executives or groups that can scale—and maybe be employed by us again, after the prize ends—so everybody getting together to produce the first 10 runs, and then disbanding, in a process that doesn’t scale to produce 100 runs, is not quite what we are hoping for here!
It seems to me that their priority is find a pipeline that scales. Scaling competitions are frequently long-tailed, which makes them winner-take-all. A winner-take-all system has the bonus benefit of centralized control. They only have to talk to a small number of people. Working through a single distributor is easier than wrangling a hundred different authors directly.
I also like the idea of collaboration and figuring out a way to share gains from the bounty in a way which people helping each other out, and have set up a Discord for real time collaboration. I’m also committing to not making any profit from this, though I am open to building systems which allow organizers other than me to be compensated.
I can’t tell if it is purposeful that this is set up in an adversarial/ winner-take-all kind of way. It’s really off-putting to me, and seems to encourage everyone being out for themselves, rather than collaboration. Particularly for such an inherently collaborative product. Maybe Nate and Eliezer just expect cooperation to fail?
Anyways, if people DO want to attempt some kind of collaboration… EDIT- Don’t join my Facebook group, join plex’s Discord linked in the comment below instead
We pay out $20,000 per run for the first 10 runs, as quality runs are received, not necessarily all to one group. If more than one group demonstrates the ability to scale, we might ask more than one group to contribute to the $1M 100-run dataset. Them cooperating with each other would hardly be a problem. That said, a lot of the purpose of the 10-run trial is exactly to locate executives or groups that can scale—and maybe be employed by us again, after the prize ends—so everybody getting together to produce the first 10 runs, and then disbanding, in a process that doesn’t scale to produce 100 runs, is not quite what we are hoping for here!
It seems to me that their priority is find a pipeline that scales. Scaling competitions are frequently long-tailed, which makes them winner-take-all. A winner-take-all system has the bonus benefit of centralized control. They only have to talk to a small number of people. Working through a single distributor is easier than wrangling a hundred different authors directly.
I also like the idea of collaboration and figuring out a way to share gains from the bounty in a way which people helping each other out, and have set up a Discord for real time collaboration. I’m also committing to not making any profit from this, though I am open to building systems which allow organizers other than me to be compensated.
Signal-boosting this. Here’s to more teams working together to get this bounty! ᾔ2