6 - Trump’s move wasn’t bad: Yudkwosky didn’t take into account the support of other intellectuals in the same sphere
Both user:hg00 and I argued that Eliezer stopped searching for expert opinions in a motivated way, but I concluded that relying on expert opinion, which ultimately appears to indicate that Trump will probably have more negative effects on our foreign policy than Clinton, was correct anyway. The OP specifies that the purpose of the discussion is to evaluate methodology, and remains silent on the evaluation of conclusions. I request that the summary you’ve written be edited to reflect this. (Removing the phrase ‘Trump’s move wasn’t bad’ seems sufficient to me; maybe explicitly mention motivated cognition?)
I also tentatively suggest appending the summary to the OP once you expect that you won’t have to edit it again.
The OP specifies that the purpose of the discussion is to evaluate methodology, and remains silent on the evaluation of conclusions. I request that the summary you’ve written be edited to reflect this.
I realized just now that the summary could have been taken as “here’s why Yudkowsky was wrong”, while for me it has always been: “here’s people thought about why Yudkowsky could be wrong”.
It is intended purely as a summary, not an endorsement. I will retain point n° 6, but I’ll edit to a more neutral first sentence.
Upvoted. Thank you for hosting.
Both user:hg00 and I argued that Eliezer stopped searching for expert opinions in a motivated way, but I concluded that relying on expert opinion, which ultimately appears to indicate that Trump will probably have more negative effects on our foreign policy than Clinton, was correct anyway. The OP specifies that the purpose of the discussion is to evaluate methodology, and remains silent on the evaluation of conclusions. I request that the summary you’ve written be edited to reflect this. (Removing the phrase ‘Trump’s move wasn’t bad’ seems sufficient to me; maybe explicitly mention motivated cognition?)
I also tentatively suggest appending the summary to the OP once you expect that you won’t have to edit it again.
I realized just now that the summary could have been taken as “here’s why Yudkowsky was wrong”, while for me it has always been: “here’s people thought about why Yudkowsky could be wrong”.
It is intended purely as a summary, not an endorsement. I will retain point n° 6, but I’ll edit to a more neutral first sentence.
I’ll write an ETA reflecting this.