I often have the opposite complaint, which is that when reading a sequence, I wish I knew what the authors’ bottom line is, so I can better understand how their arguments relate and which ones are actually important and worth paying attention to. If I find a flaw, does it actually affect their conclusions or is it just a nit? In this case, I wish I knew what the authors’ actual ideas are for aligning AI “conservatively”.
One way to solve both of our complaints is if the authors posted the entire sequence at once, but I can think of some downsides to doing that (reducing reader motivation, lack of focus in discussion), so maybe still post to LW one at a time, but make the entire sequence available somewhere else for people to read ahead or reference if they want to?
We’re very interested in seeing where people see flaws, and there’s a real chance that they could change our views. This is a forum post, not a book, and the format and our intent sharing it differs. That is, if we had completed the entire sequence before starting to get public feedback, the idea of sharing the full seuquence at the start would work—but we have not. We have ideas, partial drafts, and some thoughts on directions to pursue, but it’s not obvious that the problems we’re addressing are solvable, so we certainly don’t have final conclusions, nor do I think we will get there when we conclude the sequence.
One way to solve both of our complaints is if the authors posted the entire sequence at once, but I can think of some downsides to doing that (reducing reader motivation, lack of focus in discussion)
Also the fact that you don’t get to use real-time feedback from readers on what their disagreements/confusions are, allowing you to change what’s in the sequence itself or to address these problems in future posts.
Anyway, I don’t have a problem with authors making clear what their bottom line is.[1] I have a problem with them arguing for their bottom line out of order, in ways that unintentionally but pathologically result in lingering confusions and disagreements and poor communication.
If nothing else, reading that tells you as a reader whether it’s something you’re interested in hearing about or not, allowing you to not waste time needlessly if it’s the latter
I often have the opposite complaint, which is that when reading a sequence, I wish I knew what the authors’ bottom line is, so I can better understand how their arguments relate and which ones are actually important and worth paying attention to. If I find a flaw, does it actually affect their conclusions or is it just a nit? In this case, I wish I knew what the authors’ actual ideas are for aligning AI “conservatively”.
One way to solve both of our complaints is if the authors posted the entire sequence at once, but I can think of some downsides to doing that (reducing reader motivation, lack of focus in discussion), so maybe still post to LW one at a time, but make the entire sequence available somewhere else for people to read ahead or reference if they want to?
We’re very interested in seeing where people see flaws, and there’s a real chance that they could change our views. This is a forum post, not a book, and the format and our intent sharing it differs. That is, if we had completed the entire sequence before starting to get public feedback, the idea of sharing the full seuquence at the start would work—but we have not. We have ideas, partial drafts, and some thoughts on directions to pursue, but it’s not obvious that the problems we’re addressing are solvable, so we certainly don’t have final conclusions, nor do I think we will get there when we conclude the sequence.
Also the fact that you don’t get to use real-time feedback from readers on what their disagreements/confusions are, allowing you to change what’s in the sequence itself or to address these problems in future posts.
Anyway, I don’t have a problem with authors making clear what their bottom line is.[1] I have a problem with them arguing for their bottom line out of order, in ways that unintentionally but pathologically result in lingering confusions and disagreements and poor communication.
If nothing else, reading that tells you as a reader whether it’s something you’re interested in hearing about or not, allowing you to not waste time needlessly if it’s the latter