I think many people have given you feedback. It is definitely not because of “strategic messaging”. It’s because you keep making incomprehensible arguments that don’t make any sense and then get triggered when anyone tries to explain why they don’t make sense, while making statements that are wrong with great confidence.
As is, this is dissatisfying. On this forum, I’d hope[1] there is a willingness to discuss differences in views first, before moving to broadcasting subjective judgements[2] about someone.
People have already spent many hours giving you object-level feedback on your views. If this still doesn’t meet the relevant threshold for then moving on and discussing judgements, then basically no one can ever be judged (and as such our community would succumb to eternal september and die).
It’s because you keep making incomprehensible arguments that don’t make any sense
Good to know that this is why you think AI Safety Camp is not worth funding.
Once a core part of the AGI non-safety argument is put into maths to be comprehensible for people in your circle, it’d be interesting to see how you respond then.
I think many people have given you feedback. It is definitely not because of “strategic messaging”. It’s because you keep making incomprehensible arguments that don’t make any sense and then get triggered when anyone tries to explain why they don’t make sense, while making statements that are wrong with great confidence.
People have already spent many hours giving you object-level feedback on your views. If this still doesn’t meet the relevant threshold for then moving on and discussing judgements, then basically no one can ever be judged (and as such our community would succumb to eternal september and die).
Good to know that this is why you think AI Safety Camp is not worth funding.
Once a core part of the AGI non-safety argument is put into maths to be comprehensible for people in your circle, it’d be interesting to see how you respond then.