I like your vision of a perfect should world, but I feel that you’re ignoring the request to deal with the actual world. People do in fact end up disincentivized from posting due to the sorts of criticism you enjoy. Do you believe that this isn’t a problem, or that it is but it’s not worth solving, or that it’s worth solving but there’s a trivial solution?
Ok, then that’s the crux of this argument. Personally, I value Eliezer’s writing and Conor Moreton’s writing more than I value a culture of unfettered criticism.
This seems like a good argument for the archipelago concept? You can have your culture of unfettered criticism on some blogs, and I can read my desired authors on their blogs. Would there be negative consequences for you if that model were followed?
There would of course be negative consequences, but see how tendentious your phrasing is: you ask if there would be negative consequences for me, as if to imply that this is some personal concern about personal benefit or harm.
No; the negative consequences are not for me, but for all of us! Without a “culture of unfettered criticism”, as you say, these very authors’ writings will go un-criticized, their claims will not be challenged, and the quality of their ideas will decline. And if you doubt this, then compare Eliezer’s writing now with his writing of ten years ago, and see that this has already happened.
(This is, of course, not to mention the more obvious harms—the spread of bad ideas through our community consensus being only the most obvious of those.)
And if you doubt this, then compare Eliezer’s writing now with his writing of ten years ago, and see that this has already happened.
I suppose I am probably more impressed by the median sequence post than the median post EY writes to facebook now. But my default explanation would just be that 1) he already picked the low hanging fruit of his best ideas, and 2) regression to the mean—no artist can live up to their greatest work.
Edit: feel compelled to add—still mad respect for modern EY posts. Don’t stop writing buddy. (Not that my opinion would have much effect either way.)
Without a “culture of unfettered criticism”, as you say, these very authors’ writings will go un-criticized, their claims will not be challenged, and the quality of their ideas will decline.
This seems like a leap. Criticism being fettered does not mean criticism is absent.
I was quoting PeterBorah; that is the phrasing he used. I kept it in quotes because I don’t endorse it myself. The fact is, “fettered criticism” is a euphemism.
What precisely it’s a euphemism for may vary somewhat from context to context—by the nature of the ‘fetters’, so to speak—and these themselves will be affected by the incentives in place (such as the precise implementation and behavior of the moderation tools available to authors, among others).
But one thing it can easily be a euphemism for, is “actually no substantive criticism at all”.
As for my conclusion being a leap—as I say, the predicted outcome has already taken place. There is no need for speculation. (And it is, of course, only one example out of many.)
I like your vision of a perfect should world, but I feel that you’re ignoring the request to deal with the actual world. People do in fact end up disincentivized from posting due to the sorts of criticism you enjoy. Do you believe that this isn’t a problem, or that it is but it’s not worth solving, or that it’s worth solving but there’s a trivial solution?
Remember that Policy Debates Should Not Appear One-Sided.
Indeed, it is not a problem; it is a solution.
Ok, then that’s the crux of this argument. Personally, I value Eliezer’s writing and Conor Moreton’s writing more than I value a culture of unfettered criticism.
This seems like a good argument for the archipelago concept? You can have your culture of unfettered criticism on some blogs, and I can read my desired authors on their blogs. Would there be negative consequences for you if that model were followed?
There would of course be negative consequences, but see how tendentious your phrasing is: you ask if there would be negative consequences for me, as if to imply that this is some personal concern about personal benefit or harm.
No; the negative consequences are not for me, but for all of us! Without a “culture of unfettered criticism”, as you say, these very authors’ writings will go un-criticized, their claims will not be challenged, and the quality of their ideas will decline. And if you doubt this, then compare Eliezer’s writing now with his writing of ten years ago, and see that this has already happened.
(This is, of course, not to mention the more obvious harms—the spread of bad ideas through our community consensus being only the most obvious of those.)
I suppose I am probably more impressed by the median sequence post than the median post EY writes to facebook now. But my default explanation would just be that 1) he already picked the low hanging fruit of his best ideas, and 2) regression to the mean—no artist can live up to their greatest work.
Edit: feel compelled to add—still mad respect for modern EY posts. Don’t stop writing buddy. (Not that my opinion would have much effect either way.)
I actually prefer the average post in Inadequate Equilibria quite a bit over the average post in the sequences.
This seems like a leap. Criticism being fettered does not mean criticism is absent.
I was quoting PeterBorah; that is the phrasing he used. I kept it in quotes because I don’t endorse it myself. The fact is, “fettered criticism” is a euphemism.
What precisely it’s a euphemism for may vary somewhat from context to context—by the nature of the ‘fetters’, so to speak—and these themselves will be affected by the incentives in place (such as the precise implementation and behavior of the moderation tools available to authors, among others).
But one thing it can easily be a euphemism for, is “actually no substantive criticism at all”.
As for my conclusion being a leap—as I say, the predicted outcome has already taken place. There is no need for speculation. (And it is, of course, only one example out of many.)