Vitor, do you agree that Scott Alexander won the bet?
To be clear, I don't think he did. In Scott's images, the cat and the robot are not in a factory and the robot isn't looking at the cat, the lamma desn't have a bell on its tail and the robot "farmer" is not in a cathedral and doesn't look like a farmer. I assumed that to win the bet …
Vitor, do you agree that Scott Alexander won the bet?
To be clear, I don't think he did. In Scott's images, the cat and the robot are not in a factory and the robot isn't looking at the cat, the lamma desn't have a bell on its tail and the robot "farmer" is not in a cathedral and doesn't look like a farmer. I assumed that to win the bet that was about compositionality, all the details in the prompt would have to be right, and unambiguously so, but that is not the case.
Vitor, do you agree that Scott Alexander won the bet?
To be clear, I don't think he did. In Scott's images, the cat and the robot are not in a factory and the robot isn't looking at the cat, the lamma desn't have a bell on its tail and the robot "farmer" is not in a cathedral and doesn't look like a farmer. I assumed that to win the bet that was about compositionality, all the details in the prompt would have to be right, and unambiguously so, but that is not the case.
As I commented on the original post, I disagree with Scott and am not conceding the bet.
can you link or paste here your objection?
Thank you for clarifying, Vitor. Sorry that I missed your comment on Scott Alexander's post.