I think considerations are in important input into decision making and if you downvote anyone who writes clear considerations without conforming to your extremely high standards then you will tax disagreement.
Perhaps you are very confident that you are only taxing bad takes and not just contrary ones, but I am not as confident as you are.
Overall, I think this is poor behaviour from a truth-seeking community. I don’t expect every critic to be complimented to high heaven (as sometimes happens on the EA forum) but I think that this seems like a bad equilibrium for a post that is (in my view) fine and presented in the way this community requests (transparent and with a list of considerations).
As for the title:
If you titled this “some factors maybe in AI risk” or “some factors changes that have shifted my p(doom)” or something and left out the p(doom) I’d have upvoted because you have some interesting observations.
This is particular seems like a dodge. The actual title “My AI Vibes are Shifting” is hardly confident or declarative. Are you sure you would actully upvote if I had titled as you suggest?
I went back and reread it. Because you did mark that p(doom) as vibes based and Said you weren’t making strong predictions near the top, I removed my small downvote.
I said I’d have upvoted if you removed the prediction. The prediction is the problem here because it is appears to be based on bad logic—vibes instead of gears.
I have never downvoted something that disagrees with my stance if it tries to come to grips with the central problem of how difficult alignment is.
Nor have I downvoted pieces that scope to address only part of the pmquestion and don’t make a P(doom) prediction.
I have frequently complained on new authors’ behalf that the LW community has downvoted unfairly.
I think considerations are in important input into decision making and if you downvote anyone who writes clear considerations without conforming to your extremely high standards then you will tax disagreement.
Perhaps you are very confident that you are only taxing bad takes and not just contrary ones, but I am not as confident as you are.
Overall, I think this is poor behaviour from a truth-seeking community. I don’t expect every critic to be complimented to high heaven (as sometimes happens on the EA forum) but I think that this seems like a bad equilibrium for a post that is (in my view) fine and presented in the way this community requests (transparent and with a list of considerations).
As for the title:
This is particular seems like a dodge. The actual title “My AI Vibes are Shifting” is hardly confident or declarative. Are you sure you would actully upvote if I had titled as you suggest?
I went back and reread it. Because you did mark that p(doom) as vibes based and Said you weren’t making strong predictions near the top, I removed my small downvote.
I said I’d have upvoted if you removed the prediction. The prediction is the problem here because it is appears to be based on bad logic—vibes instead of gears.
I have never downvoted something that disagrees with my stance if it tries to come to grips with the central problem of how difficult alignment is.
Nor have I downvoted pieces that scope to address only part of the pmquestion and don’t make a P(doom) prediction.
I have frequently complained on new authors’ behalf that the LW community has downvoted unfairly.