It’s never been a rule, more of a recommendation, and it’s more about avoiding “arguments as soldiers” than a literal formation. There are lots of exceptions, and I’d argue that it really should be “aim to learn” more than “aim to inform”, though they’re related.
In any case, obfuscating advocacy in the form of a somewhat rhetorical question seems strictly worse than EITHER informing or persuading. It doesn’t seem like anyone’s trying to answer literally, they’re answering related questions about the implied motivation of getting people to do something about S-risk.
It’s never been a rule, more of a recommendation, and it’s more about avoiding “arguments as soldiers” than a literal formation. There are lots of exceptions, and I’d argue that it really should be “aim to learn” more than “aim to inform”, though they’re related.
In any case, obfuscating advocacy in the form of a somewhat rhetorical question seems strictly worse than EITHER informing or persuading. It doesn’t seem like anyone’s trying to answer literally, they’re answering related questions about the implied motivation of getting people to do something about S-risk.