I take this as an isolated demand for rigor, and an unfriendly response to a friendly apology. I realize you mean well, and I think your points are object-level correct. But I think you’re missing the forest for the trees here. I think it’s unhelpful to respond to an apology in a way that looks primarily hostile. It is pedantic, but worse, it’s unfriendly when being friendly works better for getting things done.
Why cares what Dean thought? Having his voice and his public platform saying “risk is real!” is valuable for the cause of not dying.
I think Dean isn’t maximally useful as a risk advocate because he still isn’t ASI pilled, but given his demonstrated willingness to change his mind, and interest in rationality, I expect he soon will be!
I take this as an isolated demand for rigor, and an unfriendly response to a friendly apology. I realize you mean well, and I think your points are object-level correct. But I think you’re missing the forest for the trees here. I think it’s unhelpful to respond to an apology in a way that looks primarily hostile. It is pedantic, but worse, it’s unfriendly when being friendly works better for getting things done.
Why cares what Dean thought? Having his voice and his public platform saying “risk is real!” is valuable for the cause of not dying.
I think Dean isn’t maximally useful as a risk advocate because he still isn’t ASI pilled, but given his demonstrated willingness to change his mind, and interest in rationality, I expect he soon will be!