No offense to Neel’s writing, but it’s instructive that Scott manages to write the same thesis so much better. It:
is 1⁄3 the length
Caveats are naturally interspersed, e.g. “Philosophers shouldn’t be constrained by PR.”
No extraneous content about Norman Borlaug, leverage, etc
has a less bossy title
distills the core question using crisp phrasing, e.g. “Does Long-Termism Ever Come Up With Different Conclusions Than Thoughtful Short-Termism?” (my emphasis)
...and a ton of other things. Long-live the short EA Forum post!
No offense to Neel’s writing, but it’s instructive that Scott manages to write the same thesis so much better. It:
is 1⁄3 the length
Caveats are naturally interspersed, e.g. “Philosophers shouldn’t be constrained by PR.”
No extraneous content about Norman Borlaug, leverage, etc
has a less bossy title
distills the core question using crisp phrasing, e.g. “Does Long-Termism Ever Come Up With Different Conclusions Than Thoughtful Short-Termism?” (my emphasis)
...and a ton of other things. Long-live the short EA Forum post!
FWIW I would not be offended if someone said Scott’s writing is better than mine. Scott’s writing is better than almost everyone’s.
Your comment inspired me to work harder to make my writings more Scott-like.