I’m way more skeptical than you about maintaining a canonical perspective
Which part of the post are you refering to?
I read Jessica as being pretty down on the canonical perspective in this post. As in this part:
Since then, aesthetic intuitions have led me to instead think of the problem of collective epistemology as one of decentralized coordination: how can good-faith actors reason and act well as a collective superintelligence in conditions of fog of war, where deception is prevalent and creation of common knowledge is difficult? I find this framing of collective epistemology more beautiful than the idea of a immediately deferring to a canonical perspective, and it is a better fit for the real world.
Try to make information and models common knowledge among a group when possible, so they can be integrated into a canonical perspective. This allows the group to build on this, rather than having to re-derive or re-state it repeatedly.
and:
This can result in a question being definitively settled, which is great for the group’s ability to reliably get the right answer to the question, rather than having a range of “acceptable” answers that will be chosen from based on factors other than accuracy.
Which part of the post are you refering to?
I read Jessica as being pretty down on the canonical perspective in this post. As in this part:
I’m on board with the paragraph you quoted.
I’m objecting to:
and: