I think this is a bad example. The example seems like an instrumental example. Epistemic alone would have you correct the grammar because that’s good epistemics. Instrumental would have you bend the rules for the other goals you have on the pathway to winning.
Hmm? Ah, I see; you think that I am annoyed. No, I only quoted Lumifer because their words nearly sufficed. Rest assured that I do not blame you for lacking the ability to gather information from the future.
How could correcting grammar be good epistemics? The only question of fact there is a practical one—how various people will react to the grammar coming out of your word-hole.
I think this is a bad example. The example seems like an instrumental example. Epistemic alone would have you correct the grammar because that’s good epistemics. Instrumental would have you bend the rules for the other goals you have on the pathway to winning.
“See ETA to the comment.” Lumifer meant instrumental rationality.
Comment was before his eta. Ta.
Hmm? Ah, I see; you think that I am annoyed. No, I only quoted Lumifer because their words nearly sufficed. Rest assured that I do not blame you for lacking the ability to gather information from the future.
How could correcting grammar be good epistemics? The only question of fact there is a practical one—how various people will react to the grammar coming out of your word-hole.