To be clear, I still think hypothesis-generating thinkers are valuable even when unreliable, and I still think that honest and non-manipulative thinkers should not be “ruled out” as hypothesis-sources for having some mistaken hypotheses (and should be “ruled in” for having even one correct-important-and-novel hypothesis). I just care more about the caveats here than I used to.
Just saw this AnnaSalamon comment on LessWrong about generativity & trustworthiness. Excerpt:
Your link to Anna Salamon’s comment goes to the Wikipedia page for sealioning :)
Argh!
Fixed, thanks.