Last minute review. Daniel Kokotajlo, the author of this post, has written a review as a separate post, within which he identifies a flawed argument here and recommends against this post’s inclusion in the review on that basis.
I disagree with that recommendation. The flaw Daniel identifies and improves does not invalidate the core claim of the post. It does appear to significantly shift the conclusion within the post, but:
I still feel that this still falls within the scope of the title and purpose of the post.
I feel the shifted conclusion falls within the scope of the uncertainty expressed within the post.
The details of the original uncertain conclusion were not the focus of conversation in the comments; we spent much more time on claims, examples, and intuitions. Further, the new conclusion doesn’t invalidate the later work done over the course of 2020 that I can see, so it wouldn’t make the post accidentally misleading.
I take a strong view of how much editing is acceptable in a post before it goes in the book; I am sympathetic to Raemon’s ideal world.
Lastly, I am obligated to point out that Daniel and I were essentially mid-conversation when I started this review. This is pretty sub-optimal, but the deadline for reviews was fast approaching and I needed to get in under the wire. Any misrepresentation of Daniel’s position is my mistake.
Last minute review. Daniel Kokotajlo, the author of this post, has written a review as a separate post, within which he identifies a flawed argument here and recommends against this post’s inclusion in the review on that basis.
I disagree with that recommendation. The flaw Daniel identifies and improves does not invalidate the core claim of the post. It does appear to significantly shift the conclusion within the post, but:
I still feel that this still falls within the scope of the title and purpose of the post.
I feel the shifted conclusion falls within the scope of the uncertainty expressed within the post.
The details of the original uncertain conclusion were not the focus of conversation in the comments; we spent much more time on claims, examples, and intuitions. Further, the new conclusion doesn’t invalidate the later work done over the course of 2020 that I can see, so it wouldn’t make the post accidentally misleading.
I take a strong view of how much editing is acceptable in a post before it goes in the book; I am sympathetic to Raemon’s ideal world.
Lastly, I am obligated to point out that Daniel and I were essentially mid-conversation when I started this review. This is pretty sub-optimal, but the deadline for reviews was fast approaching and I needed to get in under the wire. Any misrepresentation of Daniel’s position is my mistake.