> Why six months? Why not six weeks or six years?
The duration of pause to assess things must necessarily be a guess. Also, basic logic tells you that six months does not preclude six years, so I don't know why that is even suggested as an alternative. The stuff about publishing papers may be true (or not, supported by it is by an anonymous anecdote), but entirely besides the point.
> On the other hand, I’m deeply confused by the people who signed the open letter, even though they continue to downplay or even ridicule GPT’s abilities, as well as the “sensationalist” predictions of an AI apocalypse.
To the extent those people exist, it's because they are scared.
IDK, I guess this is far from the dumbest thing I've seen written about chatgpt, but this response is weak and ill-considered.
I'm really expecting more from the people who are supposed to be the smart ones in the room.