I think your critique hinges on a misunderstanding triggered by the word “religion.” You (mis)portray my position as advocating for religion’s worse epistemic practices; in reality I’m trying to highlight durable architectural features when instrumental reward shaping fails.
The claim “religion works by damaging rationality” is a strawman. My post is about borrowing design patterns that might cultivate robust alignment. It does not require you to accept the premise that religion thrives exclusively by “preventing good reasoning”.
I explicitly state to examine the structural concept of intrinsic motivations that remain stable in OOD scenarios; not religion itself. Your assessment glosses over these nuances; a mismodeling of my actual position.
I think your critique hinges on a misunderstanding triggered by the word “religion.” You (mis)portray my position as advocating for religion’s worse epistemic practices; in reality I’m trying to highlight durable architectural features when instrumental reward shaping fails.
The claim “religion works by damaging rationality” is a strawman. My post is about borrowing design patterns that might cultivate robust alignment. It does not require you to accept the premise that religion thrives exclusively by “preventing good reasoning”.
I explicitly state to examine the structural concept of intrinsic motivations that remain stable in OOD scenarios; not religion itself. Your assessment glosses over these nuances; a mismodeling of my actual position.