I’m not sure I take a throwaway comment by someone closely socially tied to the author of the comment as evidence that it isn’t equivalent.
Also it doesn’t need to be literally equivalent to them. The criticism, if there is one, would be that Scott’s concept doesn’t add anything to the work done by academics—although that criticism would be false if it unified hitherto un-unified fields in a useful way.
The criticism, if there is one, would be that Scott’s concept doesn’t add anything to the work done by academics
Stuart Armstrong (author of the OP in the link above) seems to think it was academically inspiring, cf. the passage starting with
Academic Moloch
Ok, now to the point. The “Moloch” idea is very interesting, and, at the FHI, we may try to do some research in this area (naming it something more respectable/boring, of course, something like “how to avoid stable value-losing civilization attractors”).
The project hasn’t started yet, but a few caveats to the Moloch idea have already occurred to me. …
Not sure if that counts for you.
(I’m not socially tied to Luke in any way. I had the same misconception as you a long time ago, remember reading that comment as clarifying, and thought you would appreciate the share.)
I’m not sure I take a throwaway comment by someone closely socially tied to the author of the comment as evidence that it isn’t equivalent.
Also it doesn’t need to be literally equivalent to them. The criticism, if there is one, would be that Scott’s concept doesn’t add anything to the work done by academics—although that criticism would be false if it unified hitherto un-unified fields in a useful way.
That’s fair, no need to take it.
Stuart Armstrong (author of the OP in the link above) seems to think it was academically inspiring, cf. the passage starting with
Not sure if that counts for you.
(I’m not socially tied to Luke in any way. I had the same misconception as you a long time ago, remember reading that comment as clarifying, and thought you would appreciate the share.)