Here I’ll illustrate the problem with your viewpoint on the ambiguity problem I have. Just going to spitball a bunch of problems I end up asking myself.
If I’m steelmanning the viewpoint:
I’d be defending how this bundle of reasons leads to the conclusion. Conceptually easy and normal steelmanning.
I’d provide strong evidence for each claim and my burden would be showing how load bearing of a claim and how it’s mistaken or how it could reasonably come to be.
If I’m steelmanning a world view I’d be defending something like this follows:
Am I defending the modal reasoning of the viewpoint holder across a population or the top reason holder (e.g. the average deontologist or Korsgaard?)
Am I defending the top world view holder in the eyes of the steelman opponent or in some objective modal observer (e.g. if I’m saying p(doom) = 90% is wrong do you want me to Paul Christiano’s viewpoint or Yann LeCunn’s)
Subquestion here is do you want some expected value calculus of: change from base opinion * likelihood to change opinion.
If I’m steelmanning assumptions:
Do you want the assumptions to line up with the opposing viewpoint such that the criticism of assumptions dissolves?
Do you want me to make explicit the assumptions and provide broad reasons for them?
Are you steelmanning a specific reason:
E.g. for steelmanning bioanchors we could decompose it down to inputs, probability distribution problems, forecasting certainty. Each of these argues from an external or internal frame of the bioanchors report and shows differing levels of understanding—especially because they’re interlinked. For instance, if you wanted a steelman of long-timelines|fast take off you end forcing a hardware overhang argument.
Are you steelmanning a reconstruction:
Arguments often exist in chains of argumentation so steelmans that isolate and so a reconstructive defence of an argument that asks for a steelman is often decontextualised and confused.
Overall, I think a large part of the problem is the phrase “what is your steelman” being goodharted in the same way “I notice I’m confused” is where the original meaning is loss in a miasma of eternal September.
I would be interested in a good explainer here! I just wrote a post that probably could have done with me reflecting on what I recommend doing.
Here I’ll illustrate the problem with your viewpoint on the ambiguity problem I have. Just going to spitball a bunch of problems I end up asking myself.
If I’m steelmanning the viewpoint:
I’d be defending how this bundle of reasons leads to the conclusion. Conceptually easy and normal steelmanning.
I’d provide strong evidence for each claim and my burden would be showing how load bearing of a claim and how it’s mistaken or how it could reasonably come to be.
If I’m steelmanning a world view I’d be defending something like this follows:
Am I defending the modal reasoning of the viewpoint holder across a population or the top reason holder (e.g. the average deontologist or Korsgaard?)
Am I defending the top world view holder in the eyes of the steelman opponent or in some objective modal observer (e.g. if I’m saying p(doom) = 90% is wrong do you want me to Paul Christiano’s viewpoint or Yann LeCunn’s)
Subquestion here is do you want some expected value calculus of: change from base opinion * likelihood to change opinion.
If I’m steelmanning assumptions:
Do you want the assumptions to line up with the opposing viewpoint such that the criticism of assumptions dissolves?
Do you want me to make explicit the assumptions and provide broad reasons for them?
Are you steelmanning a specific reason:
E.g. for steelmanning bioanchors we could decompose it down to inputs, probability distribution problems, forecasting certainty. Each of these argues from an external or internal frame of the bioanchors report and shows differing levels of understanding—especially because they’re interlinked. For instance, if you wanted a steelman of long-timelines|fast take off you end forcing a hardware overhang argument.
Are you steelmanning a reconstruction:
Arguments often exist in chains of argumentation so steelmans that isolate and so a reconstructive defence of an argument that asks for a steelman is often decontextualised and confused.
Overall, I think a large part of the problem is the phrase “what is your steelman” being goodharted in the same way “I notice I’m confused” is where the original meaning is loss in a miasma of eternal September.