I agree with you but I think that part of the deal here should be that if you make a strong value judgement in your title, you get more social punishment if you fail to convince readers. E.g. if that post is unpersuasive, I think it’s reasonable to strong downvote it, but if it had a gentler title, I’d think you should be more forgiving.
I agree with the “strong title + unconvincing = social punishment” part. But you seem to only apply it to the “value judgement” in the title, and I disagree with that.
The post being critiqued has a bold, unapologetic title: no “model” or “forecast” or “this could be”, just this is “AI 2027″, you deal with it. And is published on its own website with high production values. It’s borderline arrogant.
In that context, a response article (not a website!) named “A deep critique… of bad timeline models” sounds comparatively level-headed to me.
tbf to the AI 2027 article, whilst it makes a number of contentious arguments its actual titles and subtitles seem quite low key.
But I do agree with the meta point that norms of only socially punishing critics for boldness of their claims is counterproductive, and norms of careful hedging can result in actual sanewashing of nonsense “RFK advances novel theory about causes of autism; some experts suggest other causes”.
I’m not saying we should treat criticisms very differently from non-criticism posts (except that criticisms are generally lower effort and lower value).
I agree with you but I think that part of the deal here should be that if you make a strong value judgement in your title, you get more social punishment if you fail to convince readers. E.g. if that post is unpersuasive, I think it’s reasonable to strong downvote it, but if it had a gentler title, I’d think you should be more forgiving.
Yep, this seems extremely reasonable—I am in practice far more annoyed if a piece makes attacks and does not deliver
I agree with the “strong title + unconvincing = social punishment” part. But you seem to only apply it to the “value judgement” in the title, and I disagree with that.
The post being critiqued has a bold, unapologetic title: no “model” or “forecast” or “this could be”, just this is “AI 2027″, you deal with it. And is published on its own website with high production values. It’s borderline arrogant.
In that context, a response article (not a website!) named “A deep critique… of bad timeline models” sounds comparatively level-headed to me.
tbf to the AI 2027 article, whilst it makes a number of contentious arguments its actual titles and subtitles seem quite low key.
But I do agree with the meta point that norms of only socially punishing critics for boldness of their claims is counterproductive, and norms of careful hedging can result in actual sanewashing of nonsense “RFK advances novel theory about causes of autism; some experts suggest other causes”.
I’m not saying we should treat criticisms very differently from non-criticism posts (except that criticisms are generally lower effort and lower value).