Yeah. Rereading the thread I agree it’s not as relevant to this as I thought.
I think a dedicated response would be good.
I do think, when/if such a response comes, it would be valuable to take the opportunity to frame the debate more in terms of “sharp vs smooth takeoff” or “discontinuous vs continuous”.
BTW, I had an interesting meta-experience with this thread, where at first when I was called out for making a false/irrelevant claim, I felt bad (in particular since I saw I had gotten downvoted for it), and felt an impulse to justify the original claim
Then I bucked up, edited the original comment, and wrote the followup comment acknowledging the mistake. But a short while later felt good that the followup comment was upvoted.
This made me overall feel good about LessWrong culture. Admitting mistakes even in small places naturally hurts, and I’m glad that we have good systems to incentivize it. :)
[then I made this self congratulatory meta comment which ummmm ]
Yeah. Rereading the thread I agree it’s not as relevant to this as I thought.
I think a dedicated response would be good.
I do think, when/if such a response comes, it would be valuable to take the opportunity to frame the debate more in terms of “sharp vs smooth takeoff” or “discontinuous vs continuous”.
BTW, I had an interesting meta-experience with this thread, where at first when I was called out for making a false/irrelevant claim, I felt bad (in particular since I saw I had gotten downvoted for it), and felt an impulse to justify the original claim
Then I bucked up, edited the original comment, and wrote the followup comment acknowledging the mistake. But a short while later felt good that the followup comment was upvoted.
This made me overall feel good about LessWrong culture. Admitting mistakes even in small places naturally hurts, and I’m glad that we have good systems to incentivize it. :)
[then I made this self congratulatory meta comment which ummmm ]