I’m not very convinced by MikkW’s list of possible issues, but at least it makes some attempt to engage with why readers didn’t find the post valuable.
I would be interested to hear if there are any issues with the «Army of Jakoths» post that I didn’t identify here
A few that come to mind. I’m describing rather than endorsing here but these are all issues that I think it would be at least reasonable for a reader to have.
“It’s just not very well written”. A reader might have no problem with poetic or pseudopoetic style but might think you haven’t done a good job. (Cf. Viliam’s comment.)
“Specifically, it’s trying to look like poetry without in any useful sense being poetry”. (Cf. Viliam’s comment, again.)
“It’s making an analogy but the analogy isn’t actually a good match”. (E.g., because, as I pointed out in a comment, it’s not so hard to tell whether there’s an actual invading army that’s about to loot your home and massacre your family. Or because it conflates hostility with indifference and one might reasonably feel differently about someone who hates you and wants you dead, versus someone/something that has merely noticed that “you are used of atoms it can use for something else”.)
“The foolish neighbour is a straw man”. A reader might consider that AI doom naysayers typically have less silly things to say than just “it’s absurdly improbable”. (I have less sympathy for this one than for the others, because I do frequently hear people dismissing AI doom on grounds I can’t distinguish from “this obviously seems silly to me”.)
“It’s incorrectly written”. (Complaining about punctuation and grammar.)
A general pattern here: you listed a number of issues and it seems like you conspicuously avoided ones of the form “readers found the post to be of low quality”, as opposed to “readers had an irrational dislike to one of the reasonable stylistic choices made in writing the post”.
I would be interested to hear if there are any issues with the «Army of Jakoths» post that I didn’t identify here
A few that come to mind. I’m describing rather than endorsing here but these are all issues that I think it would be at least reasonable for a reader to have.
“It’s just not very well written”. A reader might have no problem with poetic or pseudopoetic style but might think you haven’t done a good job. (Cf. Viliam’s comment.)
“Specifically, it’s trying to look like poetry without in any useful sense being poetry”. (Cf. Viliam’s comment, again.)
“It’s making an analogy but the analogy isn’t actually a good match”. (E.g., because, as I pointed out in a comment, it’s not so hard to tell whether there’s an actual invading army that’s about to loot your home and massacre your family. Or because it conflates hostility with indifference and one might reasonably feel differently about someone who hates you and wants you dead, versus someone/something that has merely noticed that “you are used of atoms it can use for something else”.)
“The foolish neighbour is a straw man”. A reader might consider that AI doom naysayers typically have less silly things to say than just “it’s absurdly improbable”. (I have less sympathy for this one than for the others, because I do frequently hear people dismissing AI doom on grounds I can’t distinguish from “this obviously seems silly to me”.)
“It’s incorrectly written”. (Complaining about punctuation and grammar.)
A general pattern here: you listed a number of issues and it seems like you conspicuously avoided ones of the form “readers found the post to be of low quality”, as opposed to “readers had an irrational dislike to one of the reasonable stylistic choices made in writing the post”.