I won’t go public with it, but of course I am going to consider it in my plans in various ways
You can ask in-advance if I want to accept confidentiality on something, and I’ll usually say no
Many words followed only after I expressed surprise and started the discussion (“about 3000 words of explanation, and a 1-2 hour chat conversation” is false, there were fewer than 2k words from your side in the entire conversation, many of which were about the third party, unrelated to your explanations of your decision procedures etc., a discussion of making a bet that you ended up not taking, some facts that you got wrong, etc.)
insisting again and again on a very specific interpretation of what reasonable conduct is and clarifying multiple times that yes, he wouldn’t want me to use information like this under any circumstance in any kind of way adversarial to the third party the information is about
I think you’re misrepresenting what I asked; I asked you to not use it adversarially towards the third party, as it seemed to me as a less strong demand than confidentiality, especially given that you already shared it with people and also said you want to be able to share information and think people like Eliezer are wrong about all the keeping-secrets stuff.
If you tell me something in secret, or ask me to put some kind of constraint on information, I will check whether I would have accepted that information with that constraint in advance. If I would have, I am happy to agree to it afterwards
Similarly, if I think you have some important preference, but you just forgot to ask me explicitly, or we didn’t have time to discuss it, or it’s just kind of obvious that you have this preference, I will do the same
Among the almost 2000 words, you did not describe this procedure even once.
And maybe I completely misinterpreted what you wrote, but from your messages, I had the impression of quite the opposite: that you think it is insane to expect people to use information in ways that align with important preferences.
Many words followed only after I expressed surprise and started the discussion (“about 3000 words of explanation, and a 1-2 hour chat conversation” is false, there were fewer than 2k words from your side in the entire conversation, many of which were about the third party, unrelated to your explanations of your decision procedures etc., a discussion of making a bet that you ended up not taking, some facts that you got wrong, etc.)
When I just extracted my messages from the thread I was referencing and threw them into a wordcounter I got 2,370 words in my part of the conversation (across three parallel threads), which is close enough to 3,000 that I feel good about my estimate. I do now realize that about 500 of those were a few weeks later (but still like a month ago), so I would have now said more like 2000 words to refer to that specific 1-2 hour conversation (do appreciate the correction, though I think in this context the conversation a few weeks later makes sense to include).
Among the almost 2000 words, you did not describe this procedure even once.
I brought it up as a consideration a few times. (Example: “Like, to be clear, I definitely rather you not have told me instead of demanding that [I] ‘only use the information to coordinate’ afterwards”). I agree I didn’t outline my whole decision-making procedure, but I did explain .
that you think it is insane to expect people to use information in ways that align with important preferences.
Sorry, I am not parsing this. My guess is you meant to say something else than “important preferences” here?
I think you’re misrepresenting what I asked; I asked you to not use it adversarially towards the third party, as it seemed to me as a less strong demand than confidentiality
It’s plausible I am still not understanding what you are asking. To be clear, what you asked for seemed to me substantially costlier than confidentiality (as I communicated pretty early on after you made your request). I have hopefully clarified my policies sufficiently now.
This kind of stuff is hard and we are evidently not on the same page about many of the basics, and that’s part of why I don’t feel comfortable promising things here, since my feeling is that you feel pretty upset already about me having violated something you consider an important norm, and I would like to calibrate expectations.
Your entire reply, after a week, was:
Many words followed only after I expressed surprise and started the discussion (“about 3000 words of explanation, and a 1-2 hour chat conversation” is false, there were fewer than 2k words from your side in the entire conversation, many of which were about the third party, unrelated to your explanations of your decision procedures etc., a discussion of making a bet that you ended up not taking, some facts that you got wrong, etc.)
I think you’re misrepresenting what I asked; I asked you to not use it adversarially towards the third party, as it seemed to me as a less strong demand than confidentiality, especially given that you already shared it with people and also said you want to be able to share information and think people like Eliezer are wrong about all the keeping-secrets stuff.
Among the almost 2000 words, you did not describe this procedure even once.
And maybe I completely misinterpreted what you wrote, but from your messages, I had the impression of quite the opposite: that you think it is insane to expect people to use information in ways that align with important preferences.
When I just extracted my messages from the thread I was referencing and threw them into a wordcounter I got 2,370 words in my part of the conversation (across three parallel threads), which is close enough to 3,000 that I feel good about my estimate. I do now realize that about 500 of those were a few weeks later (but still like a month ago), so I would have now said more like 2000 words to refer to that specific 1-2 hour conversation (do appreciate the correction, though I think in this context the conversation a few weeks later makes sense to include).
I brought it up as a consideration a few times. (Example: “Like, to be clear, I definitely rather you not have told me instead of demanding that [I] ‘only use the information to coordinate’ afterwards”). I agree I didn’t outline my whole decision-making procedure, but I did explain .
Sorry, I am not parsing this. My guess is you meant to say something else than “important preferences” here?
It’s plausible I am still not understanding what you are asking. To be clear, what you asked for seemed to me substantially costlier than confidentiality (as I communicated pretty early on after you made your request). I have hopefully clarified my policies sufficiently now.
This kind of stuff is hard and we are evidently not on the same page about many of the basics, and that’s part of why I don’t feel comfortable promising things here, since my feeling is that you feel pretty upset already about me having violated something you consider an important norm, and I would like to calibrate expectations.