I didn’t say I’d ignore everything unconditionally, just that the meta-transparency policy should be fleshed out enough that I can, for all the most important things, know you’d comment on it if they happened, and when I can rely on statements being straightforward tellings of what you believe.
And I’m not saying I will ignore everything every lab employee says, just that, unless I have good reason to think otherwise, or they have a more fleshed out meta-transparency policy, I feel the need to interpret what they say, not as if they just said what they believe straightforwardly, but through this convolution, where I need to reason about why labs allowed them to say it, whether the lab employee in question was unsure if they were saying something they weren’t supposed to and therefore modulated their views, whether they’re deliberately withholding important information.
Which is very unlike how I relate to most I read on e.g. lesswrong.
I didn’t say I’d ignore everything unconditionally, just that the meta-transparency policy should be fleshed out enough that I can, for all the most important things, know you’d comment on it if they happened, and when I can rely on statements being straightforward tellings of what you believe.
And I’m not saying I will ignore everything every lab employee says, just that, unless I have good reason to think otherwise, or they have a more fleshed out meta-transparency policy, I feel the need to interpret what they say, not as if they just said what they believe straightforwardly, but through this convolution, where I need to reason about why labs allowed them to say it, whether the lab employee in question was unsure if they were saying something they weren’t supposed to and therefore modulated their views, whether they’re deliberately withholding important information.
Which is very unlike how I relate to most I read on e.g. lesswrong.
I’ll try to have a clearer policy soon. I’m still feeling things out so it might take a couple of weeks