Well it’s a bad thing because it makes it harder to follow what they’re trying to say. It’s also a necessary thing for this subject and kind of the core question that the book has to answer is “how do we anticipate people’s objections and get past them?” and the book represents one hypothesis for how to do that. I am doubtful that it is a correct hypothesis, the reception to it doesn’t seem very positive BUT the reviews we’re getting are not from the target audience and as Scott Alexander said in his review Yudkowsky is a genius who has a history of seeing memetic opportunities that other people do not. So I feel comfortable noting I am doubtful and otherwise letting the reaction tell the story.
Well it’s a bad thing because it makes it harder to follow what they’re trying to say
If you don’t dont, you end up with in a position where the audience can read a short book, and know what your claim is, and disagree with it because of one of the unanswered objections.
and the book represents one hypothesis for how to do that. I am doubtful that it is a correct hypothesis
Well it’s a bad thing because it makes it harder to follow what they’re trying to say. It’s also a necessary thing for this subject and kind of the core question that the book has to answer is “how do we anticipate people’s objections and get past them?” and the book represents one hypothesis for how to do that. I am doubtful that it is a correct hypothesis, the reception to it doesn’t seem very positive BUT the reviews we’re getting are not from the target audience and as Scott Alexander said in his review Yudkowsky is a genius who has a history of seeing memetic opportunities that other people do not. So I feel comfortable noting I am doubtful and otherwise letting the reaction tell the story.
If you don’t dont, you end up with in a position where the audience can read a short book, and know what your claim is, and disagree with it because of one of the unanswered objections.
What’s the right way?