Stepping back for a moment, just want to clarify goal of this comment exchange. In drafting a reply, I realize I was mixing between:
1) determining whether the decision to curate was good or not 2) determining what is true (according to my own beliefs) 3) determining whether the post is “good” or not.
Of course 1) impacts 2) impacts 3).
I think I came in with LessWrong model you describe and the piece didn’t update me so much as seemed like a straightforward explainer of a simple point (“what people say is Good isn’t the same as your Values). I think you have a point that the post does something like set up one side of the dichotomy as S1 boxes, though it’s salient to me that it also has:
We don’t really know what human values are, or what shape they are, or even whether they’re A Thing at all. We don’t have trivial introspective access to our own values; sometimes we think we value a thing a lot, but realize in hindsight that we value it only a little.
That feels appropriately non-committal.
I agree there’s complexity around egregores/memeplexes and how it gets carved up.
It’s definitely not the bar for curation that everything in the post seems correct to the curator. I do think it should leave people better off than if they’d not read it. After this discussion, I’m less sure about this post. “Values are just the S1 boxes” seems so ridiculous to me that I wouldn’t expect anyone to think it, I don’t know. The egregore stuff feels much higher resolution than what this post is going for, though I think there’s interesting stuff to figure out there. I kind of like this post for having sparked that conversation, though perhaps it is a rehash that is tiresome to others.
Stepping back for a moment, just want to clarify goal of this comment exchange. In drafting a reply, I realize I was mixing between:
1) determining whether the decision to curate was good or not
2) determining what is true (according to my own beliefs)
3) determining whether the post is “good” or not.
Of course 1) impacts 2) impacts 3).
I think I came in with LessWrong model you describe and the piece didn’t update me so much as seemed like a straightforward explainer of a simple point (“what people say is Good isn’t the same as your Values). I think you have a point that the post does something like set up one side of the dichotomy as S1 boxes, though it’s salient to me that it also has:
That feels appropriately non-committal.
I agree there’s complexity around egregores/memeplexes and how it gets carved up.
It’s definitely not the bar for curation that everything in the post seems correct to the curator. I do think it should leave people better off than if they’d not read it. After this discussion, I’m less sure about this post. “Values are just the S1 boxes” seems so ridiculous to me that I wouldn’t expect anyone to think it, I don’t know. The egregore stuff feels much higher resolution than what this post is going for, though I think there’s interesting stuff to figure out there. I kind of like this post for having sparked that conversation, though perhaps it is a rehash that is tiresome to others.