Nobody’s infallible. What kind of rationalist approaches a work with a couple holes in it and leaves under the assumption that the writer is simply so perfect that everything will be addressed and wrapped up neatly by the end?
Isn’t it far more likely that in writing a fantastic teaching tool/test, Eliezer occasionally leaves a thread or two hanging?
Nobody’s infallible. What kind of rationalist approaches a work with a couple holes in it and leaves under the assumption that the writer is simply so perfect that everything will be addressed and wrapped up neatly by the end? Isn’t it far more likely that in writing a fantastic teaching tool/test, Eliezer occasionally leaves a thread or two hanging?