Did I come across as unfriendly and hostile? I am sorry if so, that was not my intent.
No, that’s not what I meant. I’m saying that the conversational moves you’re making are not ones that promote collaborative truth-seeking.
Any claim of actual importance usually has a giant tree of arguments that back it up. Any two people are going to disagree on many different nodes within this tree (just because there are so many nodes). In addition, it takes a fair amount of effort just to understand and get to the same page on any one given node.
So, if you want to do collaborative truth-seeking, you need to have the ability to look at one node of the tree in isolation, while setting aside the rest of the nodes.
In general when someone is talking about some particular node (like “evolution anchor for AGI timelines”), I think you have two moves available:
Say “I think the actually relevant node to our disagreement is <other node>”
Engage with the details of that particular node, while trying to “take on” the views of the other person for the other nodes
(As a recent example, the ACX post on underpopulation does move 2 for Sections 1-8 and move 1 for Section 9.)
In particular, the thing not to do is to talk about the particular node, then jump around into other nodes where you have other disagreements, because that’s a way to multiply the number of disagreements you have and fail to make any progress on collaborative truth-seeking. Navigating disagreements is hard enough that you really want to keep them as local / limited as possible.
(And if you do that, then other people will learn that they aren’t going to learn much from you because the disagreements keep growing rather than progress being made, and so they stop trying to do collaborative truth-seeking with you.)
Of course sometimes you start doing move (2) and then realize that actually you think your partner is correct in their assessment given their views on the other nodes, and so you need to switch to move (1). I think in that situation you should acknowledge that you agree with their assessment given their other views, and then say that you still disagree on the top-level claim because of <other node>.
(Aside: So, did I or didn’t I come across as unfriendly/hostile? I never suggested that you said that, only that maybe it was true. This matters because I genuinely worry that I did & am thinking about being more cautious in the future as a result.)
So, given that I wanted to do both 1 and 2, would you think it would have been fine if I had just made them as separate comments, instead of mentioning 1 in passing in the thread on 2? Or do you think I really should have picked one to do and not done both?
The thing about changing my mind also resonates—that definitely happened to some extent during this conversation, because (as mentioned above) I didn’t realize Nuno was talking about people who put lots of probability mass on the evolution anchor. For those people, a shift up or down by a couple OOMs really matters, and so the BOTEC I did about how probably the environment can be simulated for less than 10^41 flops needs to be held to a higher standard of scrutiny & could end up being judged insufficient.
So, did I or didn’t I come across as unfriendly/hostile?
You didn’t to me, but also (a) I know you in person and (b) I’m generally pretty happy to be in forceful arguments and don’t interpret them as unfriendly / hostile, while other people plausibly would (see also combat culture). So really I think I’m the wrong person to ask.
So, given that I wanted to do both 1 and 2, would you think it would have been fine if I had just made them as separate comments, instead of mentioning 1 in passing in the thread on 2? Or do you think I really should have picked one to do and not done both?
I think you can do both, if it’s clear that you’re doing these as two separate things. (Which could be by having two different comments, or by signposting clearly in a single comment.)
In this particular situation I’m objecting to starting with (2), then switching to (1) after a critique without acknowledging that you had updated on (2) and so were going to (1) instead. When I see that behavior from a random Internet commenter I’m like “ah, you are one of the people who rationalizes reasons for beliefs, and so your beliefs do not respond to evidence, I will stop talking with you now”. You want to distinguish yourself from the random Internet commenter.
(And if you hadn’t updated on (2), then my objection would have been “you are bad at collaborative truth-seeking, you started to engage on one node and then you jumped to a totally different node before you had converged on that one node, you’ll never make progress this way”.)
Something about your characterization of what happened continues to feel unfair & inaccurate to me, but there’s definitely truth in it & I think your advice is good so I will stop arguing & accept the criticism & try to remember it going forward. :)
No, that’s not what I meant. I’m saying that the conversational moves you’re making are not ones that promote collaborative truth-seeking.
Any claim of actual importance usually has a giant tree of arguments that back it up. Any two people are going to disagree on many different nodes within this tree (just because there are so many nodes). In addition, it takes a fair amount of effort just to understand and get to the same page on any one given node.
So, if you want to do collaborative truth-seeking, you need to have the ability to look at one node of the tree in isolation, while setting aside the rest of the nodes.
In general when someone is talking about some particular node (like “evolution anchor for AGI timelines”), I think you have two moves available:
Say “I think the actually relevant node to our disagreement is <other node>”
Engage with the details of that particular node, while trying to “take on” the views of the other person for the other nodes
(As a recent example, the ACX post on underpopulation does move 2 for Sections 1-8 and move 1 for Section 9.)
In particular, the thing not to do is to talk about the particular node, then jump around into other nodes where you have other disagreements, because that’s a way to multiply the number of disagreements you have and fail to make any progress on collaborative truth-seeking. Navigating disagreements is hard enough that you really want to keep them as local / limited as possible.
(And if you do that, then other people will learn that they aren’t going to learn much from you because the disagreements keep growing rather than progress being made, and so they stop trying to do collaborative truth-seeking with you.)
Of course sometimes you start doing move (2) and then realize that actually you think your partner is correct in their assessment given their views on the other nodes, and so you need to switch to move (1). I think in that situation you should acknowledge that you agree with their assessment given their other views, and then say that you still disagree on the top-level claim because of <other node>.
Thanks for this thoughtful explanation & model.
(Aside: So, did I or didn’t I come across as unfriendly/hostile? I never suggested that you said that, only that maybe it was true. This matters because I genuinely worry that I did & am thinking about being more cautious in the future as a result.)
So, given that I wanted to do both 1 and 2, would you think it would have been fine if I had just made them as separate comments, instead of mentioning 1 in passing in the thread on 2? Or do you think I really should have picked one to do and not done both?
The thing about changing my mind also resonates—that definitely happened to some extent during this conversation, because (as mentioned above) I didn’t realize Nuno was talking about people who put lots of probability mass on the evolution anchor. For those people, a shift up or down by a couple OOMs really matters, and so the BOTEC I did about how probably the environment can be simulated for less than 10^41 flops needs to be held to a higher standard of scrutiny & could end up being judged insufficient.
You didn’t to me, but also (a) I know you in person and (b) I’m generally pretty happy to be in forceful arguments and don’t interpret them as unfriendly / hostile, while other people plausibly would (see also combat culture). So really I think I’m the wrong person to ask.
I think you can do both, if it’s clear that you’re doing these as two separate things. (Which could be by having two different comments, or by signposting clearly in a single comment.)
In this particular situation I’m objecting to starting with (2), then switching to (1) after a critique without acknowledging that you had updated on (2) and so were going to (1) instead. When I see that behavior from a random Internet commenter I’m like “ah, you are one of the people who rationalizes reasons for beliefs, and so your beliefs do not respond to evidence, I will stop talking with you now”. You want to distinguish yourself from the random Internet commenter.
(And if you hadn’t updated on (2), then my objection would have been “you are bad at collaborative truth-seeking, you started to engage on one node and then you jumped to a totally different node before you had converged on that one node, you’ll never make progress this way”.)
OK. I’ll DM Nuno.
Something about your characterization of what happened continues to feel unfair & inaccurate to me, but there’s definitely truth in it & I think your advice is good so I will stop arguing & accept the criticism & try to remember it going forward. :)