I find myself confused about why you this line of reasoning goes through in this case, but is something that you very vehemently object to in the case of Ben’s post.
I’m confused at your confusion. I have strong concerns about the process behind Ben’s post, and see a similar process at work in some of your comments. I am careful about the specific factual claims I make and respond to.
I recognize that you’re not the right counterparty for Nonlinear’s specific claims, but I do think you’re in as much of a position to address my process concerns as Ben is. When responding to my post, you passed over the bullet point addressing the hypo I ran, which forms a key part of my process argument as a whole. I respect people’s right to respond or not respond to whichever conversations they want, but since the process is at the core of my point and that part was preregistered by both of us and is directly material to process, I do think it’s the most germane.
I also think post-publication I don’t think I defended those claims as correct (after Kat had shared more substantial screenshots, which did update me).
I appreciate that. If nothing else, I think this establishes that those claims should not have made it into the original post.
I share your uncertainty about litigating the other sub-points further, but think they’re important indicators of why I was comfortable making the post when I did and informing you of publication but not sharing in full. The bulk of the post and the core of the argument within it was repurposed from our public conversations. I shared the section that introduced new information (the ACX meetup part) with you and you fact-checked it. You referenced specific parts of Kat’s evidence you contested, which I checked with my own writing on those pieces of evidence, concluded I was still comfortable with those sections, and maintained.
Appreciate your response. I have more thoughts, but am probably not going to comment much further for a while, unless there is a lot more activity on this post.
I recognize that you’re not the right counterparty for Nonlinear’s specific claims, but I do think you’re in as much of a position to address my process concerns as Ben is.
I do think this is definitely not true. I know much less about the process that gave rise to Ben’s post than Ben does. I have a high-level overview, and I made decisions at a very high level of “how much time to allocate to this investigation”, but when it comes to details like:
what exactly happened for fact-checking purposes,
how much different claims are backed up by primary sources vs. witness accounts,
how much private evidence there is that didn’t make it into the post,
what the exact tradeoffs were for delaying vs. not-delaying,
how much it seemed like Nonlinear was bluffing vs. being real about promising to provide counter-evidence in a week
that is stuff that Ben has substantially more information on than I have, all of which seem relevant to the claims made in your post.
I am trying my best to share what information I have, mostly to free up time for Ben to do a more substantial response to the full post. But please don’t mistake my knowledge here for anything remotely as thorough as where Ben is at. I expect his comments on process to also be substantially superior to mine.
I’m confused at your confusion. I have strong concerns about the process behind Ben’s post, and see a similar process at work in some of your comments. I am careful about the specific factual claims I make and respond to.
I recognize that you’re not the right counterparty for Nonlinear’s specific claims, but I do think you’re in as much of a position to address my process concerns as Ben is. When responding to my post, you passed over the bullet point addressing the hypo I ran, which forms a key part of my process argument as a whole. I respect people’s right to respond or not respond to whichever conversations they want, but since the process is at the core of my point and that part was preregistered by both of us and is directly material to process, I do think it’s the most germane.
I appreciate that. If nothing else, I think this establishes that those claims should not have made it into the original post.
I share your uncertainty about litigating the other sub-points further, but think they’re important indicators of why I was comfortable making the post when I did and informing you of publication but not sharing in full. The bulk of the post and the core of the argument within it was repurposed from our public conversations. I shared the section that introduced new information (the ACX meetup part) with you and you fact-checked it. You referenced specific parts of Kat’s evidence you contested, which I checked with my own writing on those pieces of evidence, concluded I was still comfortable with those sections, and maintained.
Appreciate your response. I have more thoughts, but am probably not going to comment much further for a while, unless there is a lot more activity on this post.
I do think this is definitely not true. I know much less about the process that gave rise to Ben’s post than Ben does. I have a high-level overview, and I made decisions at a very high level of “how much time to allocate to this investigation”, but when it comes to details like:
what exactly happened for fact-checking purposes,
how much different claims are backed up by primary sources vs. witness accounts,
how much private evidence there is that didn’t make it into the post,
what the exact tradeoffs were for delaying vs. not-delaying,
how much it seemed like Nonlinear was bluffing vs. being real about promising to provide counter-evidence in a week
that is stuff that Ben has substantially more information on than I have, all of which seem relevant to the claims made in your post.
I am trying my best to share what information I have, mostly to free up time for Ben to do a more substantial response to the full post. But please don’t mistake my knowledge here for anything remotely as thorough as where Ben is at. I expect his comments on process to also be substantially superior to mine.
Perfectly reasonable. I appreciate your engagement and look forward to Ben’s response.