My first thought against would be that it would end up pretty misleading. Like, suppose the recent AGI lethalities post had this, and Eliezer picked “there is at least a 50% chance of extinction risk from AGI” as the claim. Then I think many people would agree with it, but that would look (on first glance) like many people agreed with the post, which actually makes a way more detailed and in-depth series of claims (and stronger claims of extinction), and create a false-consensus.
(I personally think this is the neatest idea so far, that allows the post author to make multiple truth-claims in the post and have them independently voted on, and doesn’t aggregate them for the post overall in any way.)
My first thought against would be that it would end up pretty misleading. Like, suppose the recent AGI lethalities post had this, and Eliezer picked “there is at least a 50% chance of extinction risk from AGI” as the claim. Then I think many people would agree with it, but that would look (on first glance) like many people agreed with the post, which actually makes a way more detailed and in-depth series of claims (and stronger claims of extinction), and create a false-consensus.
(I personally think this is the neatest idea so far, that allows the post author to make multiple truth-claims in the post and have them independently voted on, and doesn’t aggregate them for the post overall in any way.)