This isn’t to say I wouldn’t like to see more critique, but I want to encourage more critique of the top ~20% of writing, not the bottom ~20% of writing.
Fwiw, I personally choose to write criticism only in spots where it’s important yet missing (sometimes to the point where it seems everyone else is dropping the ball by allowing the authors to push a frame that’s wrong/misleading/incomplete/insufficiently argued for). Illustrative examples include Critch’s post on LLM consciousness, Bensinger’s post (and Ruby’s curation) on computationalism and identity, Abram Demski’s post on Circular Reasoning, Said’s skepticism of “statements should be at least two of true, necessary/useful, and kind,” cursory references to CEV by many top users on this site (including Habryka), Rohin Shah arguing Eliezer’s presentation of coherence arguments is fine instead of deeply misleading, etc.
One thing virtually all of these have in common is that they all come from highly reputable users on this site, they often get praise from other top users, and yet I think they’re all wrong but nobody else seems to have identified (and enunciated!) the critical issues on my mind.
(Note all the examples I chose for the grandparent comment also follow the same pattern. It’s not average Joe Schmoe failing to apply basic rules of epistemics, it’s reputable users on the level of Valentine, as an example.)
Fwiw, I personally choose to write criticism only in spots where it’s important yet missing (sometimes to the point where it seems everyone else is dropping the ball by allowing the authors to push a frame that’s wrong/misleading/incomplete/insufficiently argued for). Illustrative examples include Critch’s post on LLM consciousness, Bensinger’s post (and Ruby’s curation) on computationalism and identity, Abram Demski’s post on Circular Reasoning, Said’s skepticism of “statements should be at least two of true, necessary/useful, and kind,” cursory references to CEV by many top users on this site (including Habryka), Rohin Shah arguing Eliezer’s presentation of coherence arguments is fine instead of deeply misleading, etc.
One thing virtually all of these have in common is that they all come from highly reputable users on this site, they often get praise from other top users, and yet I think they’re all wrong but nobody else seems to have identified (and enunciated!) the critical issues on my mind.
(Note all the examples I chose for the grandparent comment also follow the same pattern. It’s not average Joe Schmoe failing to apply basic rules of epistemics, it’s reputable users on the level of Valentine, as an example.)