Yudkowsky said he did not think the AI system under discussion was as smart as a human yet.
Unresolvable The public record could not settle it.
Factual: Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?
Reasoning
'As smart as a human' is vague and undefined for a general comparison.
Cite this claim
Eliezer Yudkowsky, “Yudkowsky said he did not think the AI system under discussion was as smart as a human yet.” (said 30 March 2023). Verdict: unresolvable. Reliability API, claim c_1183b812d2b9, method 0.1.0+c876030c, dataset release v1.1.2. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_1183b812d2b9
This claim is in dataset release v1.1.2, with the same verdict.
Reply to this claim
More factual claims by Eliezer Yudkowsky
-
Resolved true
“We learned that that's false, but we did not learn that you can have a thing that can redesign a tree and build an AI much smarter than itself, that builds an AI much smarter than itself, and that…”
-
Mostly true
“I was a passionate noticer of the human brain not being homogenous, and was therefore unpleasantly surprised by transformers scaling as well as they did.”
-
Mostly true
“First of all, you realize in principle that the task of minimizing losses on predicting human text does not stop when you’re as smart as a human, right?”
-
Mostly true
“Transformers are the main thing like that.”
-
Mostly true
“Because the basic paradigm of machine learning that we are presently operating under is that you can have the loss function, but only for things you can evaluate.”
Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts are made.