I think you probably didn’t read the moderation guidelines for this post:
Moderation Note: Please don’t comment with “sides”, eg. “Eliezer is [good]/[bad]”, “people who find him abrasive are [right]/[wrong]”.
This comment seems to me to straightforwardly violate them. To be clear, I am not saying the things you are saying here should not be said, it just seems like the author was trying to have a pretty different conversation (and my guess is the author is right that whatever macro conversation is going on here will go better if people follow these guidelines for now).
Makes sense. I think I’ll move it out of the answers into the comments but leave it around, but might delete it if it ends up dominating the rest of the conversation.
I agree with this decision. You reference the comment in one of your answers. If it starts taking over, it should be removed, but can otherwise provide interesting meta-commentary.
it just seems like the author was trying to have a pretty different conversation
I think mostly in tone. If I imagine a somewhat less triggered intro sentence in Buck’s comment, it seems to be straightforwardly motivating answers to the two questions at the end of OP:
1. None of Eliezer’s public communication is -EV for AI Safety 2. Financial support of MIRI is likely to produce more consistently +EV communication than historically seen from Eliezer individually.
ETA: I do think the OP was trying to avoid spawning demon threads, which is a good impulse to have (especially when it comes to questions like this).
I think you probably didn’t read the moderation guidelines for this post:
This comment seems to me to straightforwardly violate them. To be clear, I am not saying the things you are saying here should not be said, it just seems like the author was trying to have a pretty different conversation (and my guess is the author is right that whatever macro conversation is going on here will go better if people follow these guidelines for now).
FWIW I almost missed the moderation guidelines for this post, it’s rare that people actually edit them.
Fair enough! Agree it’s not super widely used, but still seems like we should enforce it when people do use them.
Oh, you’re right, I didn’t read those. Feel free to remove the comment or whatever you think is the right move.
Makes sense. I think I’ll move it out of the answers into the comments but leave it around, but might delete it if it ends up dominating the rest of the conversation.
I agree with this decision. You reference the comment in one of your answers. If it starts taking over, it should be removed, but can otherwise provide interesting meta-commentary.
I think mostly in tone. If I imagine a somewhat less triggered intro sentence in Buck’s comment, it seems to be straightforwardly motivating answers to the two questions at the end of OP:
ETA: I do think the OP was trying to avoid spawning demon threads, which is a good impulse to have (especially when it comes to questions like this).
How does the intro sentence seem triggered? How would you have written it?