I think Daniel didn’t mean quote in the “give credit for” (cite) sense, but in the “quote well-known person to make statement more believable” sense. I think you may have understood it as the former?
I think that it sometimes but not always makes sense to pull this move. My post-hoc reason for not quoting Dario here (I don’t remember if it came up in drafting) is that Dario tells a very convenient-to-him story based on this image, and we want to tell a different story with it.
If MIRI hadn’t been using this kind of image for >15 years, and we did deploy it, I’d definitely feel a strong pull to frame it in contrast to Dario. But, because we have been (as Quetzal notes), and because it is actually a pretty good way to think about it (without Dario’s unnatural/convenient freezing of time at that point / awkward chassé around RSI), it made sense to deploy it without mentioning Dario.
If we invoked Dario here, I’d be pretty worried about both failing to sufficiently argue against Dario’s essay and derailing the piece to turn it into a Dario response. The Problem is not the anti-Machines of Loving Grace (maybe we should have asked Max Harms to write the anti-Machines of Loving Grace back when it was on everyone’s mind, but we didn’t).
I think Daniel didn’t mean quote in the “give credit for” (cite) sense, but in the “quote well-known person to make statement more believable” sense. I think you may have understood it as the former?
[other contributors likely disagree with me]
Quetzal may be reading it that way; I’m not.
I think that it sometimes but not always makes sense to pull this move. My post-hoc reason for not quoting Dario here (I don’t remember if it came up in drafting) is that Dario tells a very convenient-to-him story based on this image, and we want to tell a different story with it.
If MIRI hadn’t been using this kind of image for >15 years, and we did deploy it, I’d definitely feel a strong pull to frame it in contrast to Dario. But, because we have been (as Quetzal notes), and because it is actually a pretty good way to think about it (without Dario’s unnatural/convenient freezing of time at that point / awkward chassé around RSI), it made sense to deploy it without mentioning Dario.
If we invoked Dario here, I’d be pretty worried about both failing to sufficiently argue against Dario’s essay and derailing the piece to turn it into a Dario response. The Problem is not the anti-Machines of Loving Grace (maybe we should have asked Max Harms to write the anti-Machines of Loving Grace back when it was on everyone’s mind, but we didn’t).