I felt confused at first when you said that this framing is leaning into polarization. I thought “I don’t see any clear red-tribe / blue-tribe affiliations here.”
Then I remembered that polarization doesn’t mean tying this issue to existing big coalitions (a la Hanson’s Policy Tug-O-War), but simply that it is causing people to factionalize and create an conflict and divide between them.
I think it seems to me like Max has correctly pointed out a significant crux about policy preferences between people who care about AI existential risk, and it also seems to me worth polling people and finding out who thinks what.
It does seem to me that the post is attempting to cause some factionalization here. I am interested in hearing about whether this is a good or bad faction to exist (relative to other divides) rather than simply saying that division is costly (which it is). I am interested in some argument about whether this is worth it / this faction is a real one.
Or perhaps you/others think it should ~never be actively pushed for in the way Max does in this post (or perhaps not in this way on a place with high standards for discourse like LW).
I think it is sometimes correct to specifically encourage factionalization, but I consider it bad form to do it on LessWrong, especially without being explicitly self-aware about it. (i.e should come with an acknowledging that you are spending down the epistemic commons and why you think it is worth it).
(Where, to be clear, it’s fine/good to say “hey guys I think there is a major, common disagreement here that is important to think about, and take actions based on.” The thing I’m objecting to is the title being “which side are you on?” and encouraging you to think in terms of sides, rather than a specific belief that you try to keep your identity small about.)
I felt confused at first when you said that this framing is leaning into polarization. I thought “I don’t see any clear red-tribe / blue-tribe affiliations here.”
Then I remembered that polarization doesn’t mean tying this issue to existing big coalitions (a la Hanson’s Policy Tug-O-War), but simply that it is causing people to factionalize and create an conflict and divide between them.
I think it seems to me like Max has correctly pointed out a significant crux about policy preferences between people who care about AI existential risk, and it also seems to me worth polling people and finding out who thinks what.
It does seem to me that the post is attempting to cause some factionalization here. I am interested in hearing about whether this is a good or bad faction to exist (relative to other divides) rather than simply saying that division is costly (which it is). I am interested in some argument about whether this is worth it / this faction is a real one.
Or perhaps you/others think it should ~never be actively pushed for in the way Max does in this post (or perhaps not in this way on a place with high standards for discourse like LW).
I think it is sometimes correct to specifically encourage factionalization, but I consider it bad form to do it on LessWrong, especially without being explicitly self-aware about it. (i.e should come with an acknowledging that you are spending down the epistemic commons and why you think it is worth it).
(Where, to be clear, it’s fine/good to say “hey guys I think there is a major, common disagreement here that is important to think about, and take actions based on.” The thing I’m objecting to is the title being “which side are you on?” and encouraging you to think in terms of sides, rather than a specific belief that you try to keep your identity small about.)