I’m curating this post. [Disclaimer: writing quickly.]
Given the amount of attention that What We Owe the Future is getting, it’s important to have high-quality critical reviews of it. Here are some things I particularly liked about this one:
I appreciate the focus on clarity around beliefs. [Related: Epistemic legibility.]
I think the section on “What I like” is great (and I agree that the Significance/Persistence/Contingency framework is a really useful tool), and having that section was important. More broadly, the review is quite generous and collaborative.
I really like that there are concrete forecasts and credences and that the criticisms of or disagreements with the book are specific. Relatedly, the post is careful to link to specific sources and cite relevant passages.
The review doesn’t nitpick and look for minor errors; it focuses on serious disagreements.
The post is action-relevant (do you give someone The Precipice or WWOTF?).
I really like the discussion in the comments of this post. (And I like that commenters pointed out errors that the author then edited.)
There are summaries and headings, which makes the post skimmable and easier to navigate for people who want to only read a particular section.
I should clarify that I disagree with some aspects of the review, but still think it makes lots of true and relevant claims, and appreciate it overall. (E.g. I agree with a commenter that WWOTF does a great job “bringing longtermism into the Overton window,” and that this is more important than the review acknowledges it to be.)
I’m curating this post. [Disclaimer: writing quickly.]
Given the amount of attention that What We Owe the Future is getting, it’s important to have high-quality critical reviews of it. Here are some things I particularly liked about this one:
I appreciate the focus on clarity around beliefs. [Related: Epistemic legibility.]
I think the section on “What I like” is great (and I agree that the Significance/Persistence/Contingency framework is a really useful tool), and having that section was important. More broadly, the review is quite generous and collaborative.
I really like that there are concrete forecasts and credences and that the criticisms of or disagreements with the book are specific. Relatedly, the post is careful to link to specific sources and cite relevant passages.
The review doesn’t nitpick and look for minor errors; it focuses on serious disagreements.
The post is action-relevant (do you give someone The Precipice or WWOTF?).
I really like the discussion in the comments of this post. (And I like that commenters pointed out errors that the author then edited.)
There are summaries and headings, which makes the post skimmable and easier to navigate for people who want to only read a particular section.
I should clarify that I disagree with some aspects of the review, but still think it makes lots of true and relevant claims, and appreciate it overall. (E.g. I agree with a commenter that WWOTF does a great job “bringing longtermism into the Overton window,” and that this is more important than the review acknowledges it to be.)