It’s disappointing that you wrote me off as a crank in one sentence. I expect more care, including that you also question your own assumptions.
I think it is very fair that you are disappointed. But I don’t think I can take it back. I probably wouldn’t have introduced the word crank myself here. But I do think there’s a sense in which Oliver’s use of it was accurate, if maybe needlessly harsh. It does vaguely point at the right sort of cluster in thing-space.
It is true that we discussed this and you engaged with a lot of energy and in good faith. But I did not think Forrest’s arguments were convincing at all, and I couldn’t seem to manage to communicate to you why I thought that. Eventually, I felt like I wasn’t getting through to you, Quintin Pope also wasn’t getting through to you, and continuing started to feel draining and pointless to me.
I emerged from this still liking you and respecting you, but thinking that you are wrong about this particular technical matter in a way that does seem like the kind of thing people imagine when they hear ‘crank’.
Your response is also emblematic of what I find concerning here, which is that you are not offering a clear argument of why something does not make sense to you before writing ‘crank’.
Writing that you do not find something convincing is not an argument – it’s a statement of conviction, which could as much be a reflection of a poor understanding of an argument or of not taking the time to question one’s own premises. Because it’s not transparent about one’s thinking, but still comes across like there must be legit thinking underneath, this can be used as a deflection tactic (I don’t think you are, but others who did not engage much ended the discussion on that note). Frankly, I can’t convince someone if they’re not open to the possibility of being convinced.
I explained above why your opinion was flawed – that ASI would be so powerful that it could cancel all of evolution across its constituent components (or at least anything that through some pathway could build up to lethality).
I similarly found Quintin’s counter-arguments (eg. hinging on modelling AGI as trackable internal agents) to be premised on assumptions that considered comprehensively looked very shaky.
I relate why discussing this feels draining for you. But it does not justify you writing ‘crank’, when you have not had the time to examine the actual argumentation (note: you introduced the word ‘crank’ in this thread; Oliver wrote something else).
Overall, this is bad for community epistemics. It’s better if you can write what you thought was unsound about my thinking, and I can write what I found unsound about yours. Barring that exchange, some humility that you might be missing stuff is well-placed.
I think it is very fair that you are disappointed. But I don’t think I can take it back. I probably wouldn’t have introduced the word crank myself here. But I do think there’s a sense in which Oliver’s use of it was accurate, if maybe needlessly harsh. It does vaguely point at the right sort of cluster in thing-space.
It is true that we discussed this and you engaged with a lot of energy and in good faith. But I did not think Forrest’s arguments were convincing at all, and I couldn’t seem to manage to communicate to you why I thought that. Eventually, I felt like I wasn’t getting through to you, Quintin Pope also wasn’t getting through to you, and continuing started to feel draining and pointless to me.
I emerged from this still liking you and respecting you, but thinking that you are wrong about this particular technical matter in a way that does seem like the kind of thing people imagine when they hear ‘crank’.
I kinda appreciate you being honest here.
Your response is also emblematic of what I find concerning here, which is that you are not offering a clear argument of why something does not make sense to you before writing ‘crank’.
Writing that you do not find something convincing is not an argument – it’s a statement of conviction, which could as much be a reflection of a poor understanding of an argument or of not taking the time to question one’s own premises. Because it’s not transparent about one’s thinking, but still comes across like there must be legit thinking underneath, this can be used as a deflection tactic (I don’t think you are, but others who did not engage much ended the discussion on that note). Frankly, I can’t convince someone if they’re not open to the possibility of being convinced.
I explained above why your opinion was flawed – that ASI would be so powerful that it could cancel all of evolution across its constituent components (or at least anything that through some pathway could build up to lethality).
I similarly found Quintin’s counter-arguments (eg. hinging on modelling AGI as trackable internal agents) to be premised on assumptions that considered comprehensively looked very shaky.
I relate why discussing this feels draining for you. But it does not justify you writing ‘crank’, when you have not had the time to examine the actual argumentation (note: you introduced the word ‘crank’ in this thread; Oliver wrote something else).
Overall, this is bad for community epistemics. It’s better if you can write what you thought was unsound about my thinking, and I can write what I found unsound about yours. Barring that exchange, some humility that you might be missing stuff is well-placed.
Besides this point, the respect is mutual.