(That’s a reasonable interest but not wanting to take that time is part of my not wanting to give an overall opinion about the specific situation with Palisade; I don’t have an opinion about Palisade, and my comment just means to discuss general principles.)
I don’t have an opinion about Palisade, and my comment just means to discuss general principles.
I think if you included literally this sentence at the top of your comment above, that would be a little bit clearer. Reading your comment, I was trying to figure out if you were claiming that the chess hacking research in particular runs afoul of these principles or does a good job meeting them, or something else.
(You do say “I don’t want to give an overall opinion, but some considerations:”, but nevertheless.)
Added clarification. (This seems to be a quite general problem of mismatched discourse expectations, where a commenter presumes a different shared-presumption of how much the comment is context-specific, or other things like that, compared to a reader.)
But, fwiw I think this is actually a particularly good time to talk about principles-as-they-interface-with-reality.
I think Palisade is a pretty good example of an org that AFAICT cares about as much about good group epistemics as it’s possible to care about while still also being an advocacy org trying to get something done For Real. (and/or, I think it makes sense for LW-people to hold Palisade to whatever the highest standards they think are reasonable to hold it to while expecting them to also get something done)
So, I think this is a particularly good time to talk through “okay what actually are those standards, in real life practice?”.
I am interested in you actually looking at the paper in question and saying which of these apply in this context.
(That’s a reasonable interest but not wanting to take that time is part of my not wanting to give an overall opinion about the specific situation with Palisade; I don’t have an opinion about Palisade, and my comment just means to discuss general principles.)
I think if you included literally this sentence at the top of your comment above, that would be a little bit clearer. Reading your comment, I was trying to figure out if you were claiming that the chess hacking research in particular runs afoul of these principles or does a good job meeting them, or something else.
(You do say “I don’t want to give an overall opinion, but some considerations:”, but nevertheless.)
Added clarification. (This seems to be a quite general problem of mismatched discourse expectations, where a commenter presumes a different shared-presumption of how much the comment is context-specific, or other things like that, compared to a reader.)
Reasonable.
But, fwiw I think this is actually a particularly good time to talk about principles-as-they-interface-with-reality.
I think Palisade is a pretty good example of an org that AFAICT cares about as much about good group epistemics as it’s possible to care about while still also being an advocacy org trying to get something done For Real. (and/or, I think it makes sense for LW-people to hold Palisade to whatever the highest standards they think are reasonable to hold it to while expecting them to also get something done)
So, I think this is a particularly good time to talk through “okay what actually are those standards, in real life practice?”.