This was important to the discussions around timelines at the time, back when the talk about timelines felt central. This felt like it helped give me permission to no longer consider them as central, and to fully consider a wide range of models of what could be going on. It helped make me more sane, and that’s pretty important.
It was also important for the discussion about the use of words and the creation of clarity. There’s been a long issue of exactly when and where to use words like “scam” and “lie” to describe things—when is it accurate, when is it useful, what budgets does it potentially use up? How can we describe what we see in the world in a way that creates common knowledge if we can’t use words that are literal descriptions? It’s something I still struggle with, and this is where the key arguments got made.
Thus, on reflection, I’d like to see this included.
This was important to the discussions around timelines at the time, back when the talk about timelines felt central. This felt like it helped give me permission to no longer consider them as central, and to fully consider a wide range of models of what could be going on. It helped make me more sane, and that’s pretty important.
It was also important for the discussion about the use of words and the creation of clarity. There’s been a long issue of exactly when and where to use words like “scam” and “lie” to describe things—when is it accurate, when is it useful, what budgets does it potentially use up? How can we describe what we see in the world in a way that creates common knowledge if we can’t use words that are literal descriptions? It’s something I still struggle with, and this is where the key arguments got made.
Thus, on reflection, I’d like to see this included.