IMO, this is what I briefly suggested by linking to Scott’s Against Murderism with the words “misleading compression”, i.e., I think describing a policy as murderistic and optimizing for stories are each instances of misleading compression.
If it’s only stories which matter, yet you split your efforts between stories and reality, then you will likely be outcompeted by someone who spent all of their resources on crafting good stories.
This is 100% what I find alarming about misinformation (both the malicious kind and the emergent/inadequate kind), and I don’t know a reason why alignment via debate would be resilient.
IMO, this is what I briefly suggested by linking to Scott’s Against Murderism with the words “misleading compression”, i.e., I think describing a policy as murderistic and optimizing for stories are each instances of misleading compression.
This is 100% what I find alarming about misinformation (both the malicious kind and the emergent/inadequate kind), and I don’t know a reason why alignment via debate would be resilient.