the purpose of any test is to measure something. in this case, the ability to simulate other views. let’s not be overly pedantic.
anyway, you failed the Turing test with your dialogue, which surprises me source the crucial points recovered right above. maybe @jessicata’s The Obliqueness Thesis can help—it’s written in High Lesswrongian, which I assume is the register most likely to trigger some interpretative charity
It’s not about pedantry, it’s about you understanding what I’m trying to communicate and vice versa.
The point was that if your post not only presented the a position that you or Nick Land disagrees with but also engaged with that in a back and forth dynamics with authentic arguments and counterarguments that would’ve been an improvememt over it’s current status.
This point still stands no matter what definition for ITT or its purpose you are using.
anyway, you failed the Turing test with your dialogue
Where exactly? What is your correction? Or if you think that it’s completely off, write your version of the dialogue. Once again you are failing to engage.
And yes, just to be clear, I want the substance of the argument not the form. If your grievance is that Land would’ve written his replies in a superior style, than it’s not valid. Please, write as plainly and clearly as possible in your own words.
which surprises me source the crucial points recovered right above.
I fail to parse this sentence. If you believe that all the insights into Land’s views are presented in your post—then I would appreciate if after you’ve corrected my dialogue with more authentic Land’s replies you pointed to exact source of your every correction.
it’s written in High Lesswrongian, which I assume is the register most likely to trigger some interpretative charity
For real, you should just stop worrying about styles of writing completely and just write in the most clear way you can the substance of what you actually mean.
the purpose of any test is to measure something. in this case, the ability to simulate other views. let’s not be overly pedantic.
anyway, you failed the Turing test with your dialogue, which surprises me source the crucial points recovered right above. maybe @jessicata’s The Obliqueness Thesis can help—it’s written in High Lesswrongian, which I assume is the register most likely to trigger some interpretative charity
It’s not about pedantry, it’s about you understanding what I’m trying to communicate and vice versa.
The point was that if your post not only presented the a position that you or Nick Land disagrees with but also engaged with that in a back and forth dynamics with authentic arguments and counterarguments that would’ve been an improvememt over it’s current status.
This point still stands no matter what definition for ITT or its purpose you are using.
Where exactly? What is your correction? Or if you think that it’s completely off, write your version of the dialogue. Once again you are failing to engage.
And yes, just to be clear, I want the substance of the argument not the form. If your grievance is that Land would’ve written his replies in a superior style, than it’s not valid. Please, write as plainly and clearly as possible in your own words.
I fail to parse this sentence. If you believe that all the insights into Land’s views are presented in your post—then I would appreciate if after you’ve corrected my dialogue with more authentic Land’s replies you pointed to exact source of your every correction.
For real, you should just stop worrying about styles of writing completely and just write in the most clear way you can the substance of what you actually mean.