Are you presenting arguments that you think will convince others, regardless of whether you think they are correct?
Edit: Apologies, this doesn’t live up to my goals in having a conversation. However, I am concerned that quoting someone you think has non-predictive models of what will happen as an authority, without flagging that you’re quoting them to point out that your opposition grants that particular point, is disengenious.
Why does it have to be one or the other? I personally don’t put much stock in what Eliezer and Nate think, but many other people do.
Are you presenting arguments that you think will convince others, regardless of whether you think they are correct?Edit: Apologies, this doesn’t live up to my goals in having a conversation. However, I am concerned that quoting someone you think has non-predictive models of what will happen as an authority, without flagging that you’re quoting them to point out that your opposition grants that particular point, is disengenious.
If you don’t think their arguments are convincing, I consider it misleading to attempt to convince other people with those same arguments.