Discord: LemonUniverse (.lemonuniverse). Reddit: u/Smack-works. About my situation: here.
I wrote some bad posts before 2024 because I was very uncertain how the events may develop.
I do philosophical/conceptual research, have no mathematical or programming skills. But I do know a bunch of mathematical and computer science concepts.
I guess my main problem with the post is that too many points are implicit/underexplained/have no examples.
This is an interesting point, but it felt random in the post. Like you just drop this point, disconnected from the main criticism.
I’m not sure AF researchers do this. Though I understand that calling out specific people would be offensive. Just saying that it’s not an obvious claim.
I cited EY’s AF work, because the post is about AF. The Sequences are not really AF work. I’m not sure people do AF work in the style of the Sequences? Examples would be nice. Meanwhile, here’re other counterexamples: ARC (Eliciting Latent Knowledge), Paul Christiano, Vanessa Kosoy, Alex Flint (optimization, accumulation of knowledge), TurnTrout (reframing impact), John Wentworth, Thane Ruthenis, decision theory / Lobian obstacle / logical induction work...
Definitely you’re either too charitable to analytic philosophy or too uncharitable to AF research. Or have in mind some non-obvious distinction.
In my experience, lots of analytic philosophy starts with thought experiments and non-axiomatic theories, then discusses possible counter-arguments to them (still not establishing any axioms). Sometimes it does infer “axioms” in the context of a specific debate, but anyone is free to disregard them or question their implications (because those “axioms” are not really axioms in some logic). See
EP and NEP theories
meaning holism vs. molecularism debate
plenty of underspecified solutions to the Gettier problem
Also, I think I haven’t seen an AF researcher who just relies on a hodge-podge of other researcher’s ideas without questioning them… The researchers I listed above don’t do it.