But this is what the first commenter's argument is, that's why Christianity would be incompatible with EA. A truly EA, non-universalist Christianity does not explain why evangelism isn't the only thing of any importance because by their lights it clearly is. And yet the Bible does say to do all these other good but non-maximally-effective things! Unless, as mentioned, they're all weirdly instrumental.

Of course, but then you're left with a much weaker claim, this small subset of Christians with a heterodox, uniquely EA-compatible theology should be effective altruists.

I think the only way to rescue the Bible as an EA-compatible document is by arguing that everything other than evangelism is just there to make evangelism and missionary work more successful. You need to give to the poor, follow the ten commandments, etc. because otherwise there's no Christianity to spread. But ultimately these are instrumental, the ultimate goal for every action is to keep souls out of the infinite-disvalue place.

I have run non-EA projects that have been criticized internally and externally. Why do you think it's off? Criticism is just feedback + things that don't matter, when you believe in what you're doing. The EA world is rational enough to adjust its opinions properly in the fullness of time.

If I have an active project I want it to be as good as possible. Certainly there's been mean-spirited, low-quality criticism on the EA Forum before, but not a high proportion. If relatively valid criticism bothers the founder that much, their project is just probably not going to make it. Or they don't really believe in their project (maybe for good reason, as pointed out by the critique).

"public critique clearly created barriers to starting new projects" In what sense? People read criticism of other projects and decide that starting their own isn't worth it? People with new active projects discouraged by critique?

Looking forward to seeing the ARC performance of future multimodal models. I'm also going to try to think of a text-based ARC analog, that is perhaps more general. There are only so many unique simple 2D-grid transformation rules so it can be brute forced to some extent.

I used GPT-4o which is multimodal (and in fact was even trained on these images in particular as I took the examples from the ARC website, not the Github). I did test more grid inputs and it wasn't perfect at 'visualizing' them.

I might be misunderstanding you here. You can easily get ChatGPT to convert the image to a grid representation/visualization, e.g. in Python, not just a list of square-color labels. It can formally draw out the grid any way you want and work with that, but still doesn’t make progress.

Also, to answer your initial question about ARC’s usefulness, the idea is just that these are simple problems where relevant solution strategies don’t exist on the internet. A non-visual ARC analog might be, as Chollet mentioned, Caesar ciphers with non-standard offsets.

Language models have no problem interpreting the image correctly. You can ask them for a description of the input grid and they’ll get it right, they just don’t get the pattern.