Thanks for pointing out that section. I agree that the section discusses the issue. But I am left unsatisfied about whether it defeats it.
In particular,
“I think this is likely to be sufficient for training a transformative model, although I am not confident. ”
“it is less clear whether model computation will dominate the computation of the environment. Nonetheless, I still believe this is likely”
don’t seem hugely confident. And that’s fine, the report is already pretty long.
But then even if the report is not at fault I am kind of unsatisfied about the evolutionary anchor part being used as an actual upper bound—not sure whether people are actually doing that all that often, but Eli’s comment below seems to indicate that it might be, and I remember it being used that way on a couple of occasions.
Thanks for pointing out that section. I agree that the section discusses the issue. But I am left unsatisfied about whether it defeats it.
In particular,
“I think this is likely to be sufficient for training a transformative model, although I am not confident. ”
“it is less clear whether model computation will dominate the computation of the environment. Nonetheless, I still believe this is likely”
don’t seem hugely confident. And that’s fine, the report is already pretty long.
But then even if the report is not at fault I am kind of unsatisfied about the evolutionary anchor part being used as an actual upper bound—not sure whether people are actually doing that all that often, but Eli’s comment below seems to indicate that it might be, and I remember it being used that way on a couple of occasions.