As you’re doing these delta posts, do you feel like it’s changing your own positions at all?
For example, reading this one what strikes me is that what’s portrayed as the binary sides of the delta seem more like positions near the edges of a gradient distribution, and particularly one that’s unlikely to be uniform across different types of problems.
To my eyes the most likely outcome is a situation where you are both right.
Where there are classes of problems where verification is easy and delegation is profitable, and classes of problems where verification will be hard and unsupervised delegation will be catastrophic (cough glue on pizza).
If we are only rolling things up into aggregate pictures of the average case across all problems, I can see the discussion filtering back into those two distinct deltas, but a bit like flip-flops and water bottles, the lack of nuance obscures big picture decision making.
So I’m curious if as you explore and represent the opposing views to your own, particularly as you seem to be making effort to represent without depicting them as straw person arguments, if your own views have been deepening and changing through the process?
As you’re doing these delta posts, do you feel like it’s changing your own positions at all?
Mostly not, because (at least for Yudkowsky and Christiano) these are deltas I’ve been aware of for at least a couple years. So the writing process is mostly just me explaining stuff I’ve long since updated on, not so much figuring out new stuff.
As you’re doing these delta posts, do you feel like it’s changing your own positions at all?
For example, reading this one what strikes me is that what’s portrayed as the binary sides of the delta seem more like positions near the edges of a gradient distribution, and particularly one that’s unlikely to be uniform across different types of problems.
To my eyes the most likely outcome is a situation where you are both right.
Where there are classes of problems where verification is easy and delegation is profitable, and classes of problems where verification will be hard and unsupervised delegation will be catastrophic (cough glue on pizza).
If we are only rolling things up into aggregate pictures of the average case across all problems, I can see the discussion filtering back into those two distinct deltas, but a bit like flip-flops and water bottles, the lack of nuance obscures big picture decision making.
So I’m curious if as you explore and represent the opposing views to your own, particularly as you seem to be making effort to represent without depicting them as straw person arguments, if your own views have been deepening and changing through the process?
Mostly not, because (at least for Yudkowsky and Christiano) these are deltas I’ve been aware of for at least a couple years. So the writing process is mostly just me explaining stuff I’ve long since updated on, not so much figuring out new stuff.