Here’s a good example in your reply to Stuart: “but only in humans does the lens see itself and see its flaws”. Here I think, as in my previous critical post, that you’re “stat[ing] overcertainty about the existence and mechanics of various phenomena”.
One might say that writing these statements in a more provisional and tentative fashion, such as “As far as we can tell, some humans are the only things capable of analyzing flaws in their ability to to observe the universe, and pointing out this exceptionalist element about some humans is of use because of X” makes communication too cumbersome, and there’s no need to to say because such nuances are implied.
But I disagree. I think the overcertain style of writing you and some other commenters fall into is less helpful for discussing this stuff than a greater level of nuance, and framing ideas and knowledge more provisionally.
In short, I’m requesting greater transparency about our bounded rationality in your posts.
Eliezer,
Here’s a good example in your reply to Stuart: “but only in humans does the lens see itself and see its flaws”. Here I think, as in my previous critical post, that you’re “stat[ing] overcertainty about the existence and mechanics of various phenomena”.
One might say that writing these statements in a more provisional and tentative fashion, such as “As far as we can tell, some humans are the only things capable of analyzing flaws in their ability to to observe the universe, and pointing out this exceptionalist element about some humans is of use because of X” makes communication too cumbersome, and there’s no need to to say because such nuances are implied.
But I disagree. I think the overcertain style of writing you and some other commenters fall into is less helpful for discussing this stuff than a greater level of nuance, and framing ideas and knowledge more provisionally.
In short, I’m requesting greater transparency about our bounded rationality in your posts.