Quoting the provided summary, for convenience of anyone reading this:
*Short version of my thesis: *It seems to me that CFAR got less far with “make a real art of rationality, that helps people actually make progress on tricky issues such as AI risk” than one might have hoped. My lead guess is that the barriers and tricky spots we ran into are somewhat similar to those that lots of efforts at self-help / human potential movement / etc. things have run into, and are basically **“it’s easy and locally reinforcing to follow gradients toward what one might call ‘guessing the student’s password’, and much harder and much less locally reinforcing to reason/test/whatever one’s way toward a real art of rationality. Also, the process of following these gradients tends to corrupt one’s ability to reason/care/build real stuff, as does assimilation into many parts of wider society.” **
I’m not sure that I’d characterize the position taken in the linked post as “we fucked up, and also our stuff doesn’t really work that well”, frankly… but I agree that it’s plausible that it’s what OP had in mind.
Comment reply: my low-quality thoughts on why CFAR didn’t get farther with a “real/efficacious art of rationality”
Thanks!
Quoting the provided summary, for convenience of anyone reading this:
I’m not sure that I’d characterize the position taken in the linked post as “we fucked up, and also our stuff doesn’t really work that well”, frankly… but I agree that it’s plausible that it’s what OP had in mind.
I had that in mind, and some things people wrote after the Brent Dill stuff.