I find that in reading this I end up with a better understanding of Paul and John (to the extent John summarized Paul well, but it feels right). Double-crux feels like a large ask given the hunt for a mutually shared counterfactual change that just seems like a lot to identify; ideological turing test means someone putting aside who they are and what they think too much; but “deltas” feel like a nice alternative that’s not as complicated to compute and doesn’t lose ones reference to what they think.
I’d be pretty into everyone for six months being gung-ho on deltas and trying to identify and flesh them out. It’s a cool approach. For that matter, I’d be excited for someone to try and flesh out a methodology for eliciting deltas akin to the effort Eli Tyre once put into double-crux, as an adjacent approach.
speaking to the concept of deltas between views
I find that in reading this I end up with a better understanding of Paul and John (to the extent John summarized Paul well, but it feels right). Double-crux feels like a large ask given the hunt for a mutually shared counterfactual change that just seems like a lot to identify; ideological turing test means someone putting aside who they are and what they think too much; but “deltas” feel like a nice alternative that’s not as complicated to compute and doesn’t lose ones reference to what they think.
I’d be pretty into everyone for six months being gung-ho on deltas and trying to identify and flesh them out. It’s a cool approach. For that matter, I’d be excited for someone to try and flesh out a methodology for eliciting deltas akin to the effort Eli Tyre once put into double-crux, as an adjacent approach.
So cool stuff, would like to see more like this.