I think Buck and Eliezer both agree you should only say shocking things if they were true. I think if Eliezer believed what Buck believes, he would have found a title that was still aimed at the overton-smashing strategy but honest.
I don’t think you are arguing only about the title. Titles naturally have to simplify, but the book content has to support it. The “with techniques like those available today” in “If anyone builds it (with techniques like those available today), everyone dies” sure is an important caveat, but arguably it is the default. And, as Buck agrees, the authors do qualify it that way in the book. You don’t have to repeat the qualification each time you mention it.
The core disagreement doesn’t seem to be about that but about leaving out Tricky hypothesis 2. I’m less sure that is an intentional omission by the authors. Yudkowsky sure has argued many times that alignment is tricky and hard and may feel that the burden of proof is on the other side now.
I think Buck and Eliezer both agree you should only say shocking things if they were true. I think if Eliezer believed what Buck believes, he would have found a title that was still aimed at the overton-smashing strategy but honest.
I don’t think you are arguing only about the title. Titles naturally have to simplify, but the book content has to support it. The “with techniques like those available today” in “If anyone builds it (with techniques like those available today), everyone dies” sure is an important caveat, but arguably it is the default. And, as Buck agrees, the authors do qualify it that way in the book. You don’t have to repeat the qualification each time you mention it.
The core disagreement doesn’t seem to be about that but about leaving out Tricky hypothesis 2. I’m less sure that is an intentional omission by the authors. Yudkowsky sure has argued many times that alignment is tricky and hard and may feel that the burden of proof is on the other side now.