And, disagree where appropriate, but, please don’t give it a hard time for lame pedantic reasons, or jump to assuming you disagree because you don’t like something about the vibe. Please don’t awkwardly distance yourself because it didn’t end up saying exactly the things you would have said, unless it’s actually fucking important.
This blurs the distinction between policy/cause endorsement and epistemic takes. I’m not going to tone down disagreement to “where appropriate”, but I will endorse some policies or causes strongly associated with claims I disagree with. And I generally strive to express epistemic disagreement in the most interpersonally agreeable way I find appropriate.
Even where it’s not important, tiny disagreements must be tracked (maybe especially where it’s not important, to counteract the norm you are currently channeling, which has some influence). Small details add up to large errors and differences in framings. And framings (ways of prioritizing details as more important to notice, and ways of reasoning about those details) can make one blind to other sets of small details, so it’s not a trivial matter to flinch away from some framing for any reason at all. Ideally, you develop many framings and keep switching between them to make sure you are not missing any legible takes.
Yeah I wrote that last paragraph at 5am and didn’t feel very satisfied with it and was considering editing it out for now until I figured out a better thing to say.
That paragraph matches my overall impression of your post, even if the rest of the post is not as blatant.
It’s appropriate to affirm sensationalist things because you happen to believe them, when you do (which Yudkowsky in this case does), not because they are sensationalist. It’s appropriate to support causes/policies because you prefer outcomes of their influence, not because you agree with all the claims that float around them in the world. Sensationalism is a trait of causes/ideologies that sometimes promotes their fitness, a multiplier on promotional/endorsement effort, which makes sensationalist causes with good externalities unusually effective to endorse when neglected.
The title makes it less convenient to endorse the book without simultaneously affirming its claim, it makes it necessary to choose between caveating and connotationally compromising on epistemics. Hence I endorse IABI rather than IABIED as the canonical abbreviation.
This blurs the distinction between policy/cause endorsement and epistemic takes. I’m not going to tone down disagreement to “where appropriate”, but I will endorse some policies or causes strongly associated with claims I disagree with. And I generally strive to express epistemic disagreement in the most interpersonally agreeable way I find appropriate.
Even where it’s not important, tiny disagreements must be tracked (maybe especially where it’s not important, to counteract the norm you are currently channeling, which has some influence). Small details add up to large errors and differences in framings. And framings (ways of prioritizing details as more important to notice, and ways of reasoning about those details) can make one blind to other sets of small details, so it’s not a trivial matter to flinch away from some framing for any reason at all. Ideally, you develop many framings and keep switching between them to make sure you are not missing any legible takes.
Yeah I wrote that last paragraph at 5am and didn’t feel very satisfied with it and was considering editing it out for now until I figured out a better thing to say.
That paragraph matches my overall impression of your post, even if the rest of the post is not as blatant.
It’s appropriate to affirm sensationalist things because you happen to believe them, when you do (which Yudkowsky in this case does), not because they are sensationalist. It’s appropriate to support causes/policies because you prefer outcomes of their influence, not because you agree with all the claims that float around them in the world. Sensationalism is a trait of causes/ideologies that sometimes promotes their fitness, a multiplier on promotional/endorsement effort, which makes sensationalist causes with good externalities unusually effective to endorse when neglected.
The title makes it less convenient to endorse the book without simultaneously affirming its claim, it makes it necessary to choose between caveating and connotationally compromising on epistemics. Hence I endorse IABI rather than IABIED as the canonical abbreviation.
Perhaps Raemon could say more about what he means by “please don’t awkwardly distance yourself”?