It seems like the more reasonable title for this piece is “you might be okay, just focus on that!”
If you don’t want to talk about p(doom), you need to have a very wide uncertainty, like 10-90%. That actually seems like the logic you’re using.
“You’ll be okay” is not an accurate statement of that range of uncertainty. “You might be okay” is. And you’re arguing that you should just focus on that. There I largely agree.
I just don’t like reassurances coupled with epistemic distortions.
The proper level of uncertainty is very large, and we should be honest about that and try to improve it.
Yes, in my addendum I said that a more accurate title would have been “I believe that you will most likely will be OK, and in any case should spend most of your time acting under this assumption.”
It seems like the more reasonable title for this piece is “you might be okay, just focus on that!”
If you don’t want to talk about p(doom), you need to have a very wide uncertainty, like 10-90%. That actually seems like the logic you’re using.
“You’ll be okay” is not an accurate statement of that range of uncertainty. “You might be okay” is. And you’re arguing that you should just focus on that. There I largely agree.
I just don’t like reassurances coupled with epistemic distortions.
The proper level of uncertainty is very large, and we should be honest about that and try to improve it.
Yes, in my addendum I said that a more accurate title would have been “I believe that you will most likely will be OK, and in any case should spend most of your time acting under this assumption.”