I do have much to say about this concept as you’ve described it. I wonder if you would prefer such comments here, or saved for the fuller description/explanation posts which you intend (if I understand your comments correctly) to write in the future?
(This is complicated by the fact that I also, now, have comments I’d like to make about this post, which depend on the concept of ‘authenticity’ as you describe it. I worry that such comments will simply result in you saying “ah, well, I can’t properly respond to that until I write the real post explaining ‘authenticity’”—yet they would be comments relevant to the points made in this post, rather than comments about the concept as such.)
(This, by the way, is why I prefer Eliezer’s method of starting from the dependencies…)
(This, by the way, is why I prefer Eliezer’s method of starting from the dependencies…)
I wanted to note that if dependencies are randomly already present in some fraction of the population, the ‘reverse order’ lets you convey your point to growing fractions of the population (as you go back and fill in more and more dependencies), whereas the ‘linear order’ doesn’t let you convey your point until the end (when everyone is able to get it at once).
Yes, this is a fair point. (There does remain the fact that the dependencies ought to be marked, so that those who lack them can clearly see that they lack a specific, recognized dependency, and so that they may be able to trust that the author will later fill them in, to fulfill the ‘IOU’, as you say. But that aside, I agree that your point does make the case for the “dependencies first” order less clear.)
I do have much to say about this concept as you’ve described it. I wonder if you would prefer such comments here, or saved for the fuller description/explanation posts which you intend (if I understand your comments correctly) to write in the future?
Hmm. Rather than saving such comments for the future post, I’d rather see them on the draft of it, so that it’s polished by the time it gets published, instead of going through many revisions in the open or the fuller meaning being hidden in deep comment trees. But if it takes a while to write the other post, then that imposes the cost of missing out on the comments on this post. My guess is you should write comments here, tho I will be more likely than normal to say “ah, I’ll respond to that later.”
Rather than saving such comments for the future post, I’d rather see them on the draft of it
Sorry, by “the draft of it” are you referring to… the grandparent comment? That is, you’re saying you’d like those comments here, in this thread? Or did you mean something else?
Oh—are you referring, then, to the LW “share draft” feature? (I haven’t used this functionality, myself, which may be the reason for my confusion—apologies!)
Either that or Google Docs. But anyway, I currently don’t expect to get started on such a draft until Friday, probably, and so I think you should comment here if you want to get such comments out sooner than then.
Thank you, this is somewhat helpful.
I do have much to say about this concept as you’ve described it. I wonder if you would prefer such comments here, or saved for the fuller description/explanation posts which you intend (if I understand your comments correctly) to write in the future?
(This is complicated by the fact that I also, now, have comments I’d like to make about this post, which depend on the concept of ‘authenticity’ as you describe it. I worry that such comments will simply result in you saying “ah, well, I can’t properly respond to that until I write the real post explaining ‘authenticity’”—yet they would be comments relevant to the points made in this post, rather than comments about the concept as such.)
(This, by the way, is why I prefer Eliezer’s method of starting from the dependencies…)
I wanted to note that if dependencies are randomly already present in some fraction of the population, the ‘reverse order’ lets you convey your point to growing fractions of the population (as you go back and fill in more and more dependencies), whereas the ‘linear order’ doesn’t let you convey your point until the end (when everyone is able to get it at once).
Yes, this is a fair point. (There does remain the fact that the dependencies ought to be marked, so that those who lack them can clearly see that they lack a specific, recognized dependency, and so that they may be able to trust that the author will later fill them in, to fulfill the ‘IOU’, as you say. But that aside, I agree that your point does make the case for the “dependencies first” order less clear.)
Hmm. Rather than saving such comments for the future post, I’d rather see them on the draft of it, so that it’s polished by the time it gets published, instead of going through many revisions in the open or the fuller meaning being hidden in deep comment trees. But if it takes a while to write the other post, then that imposes the cost of missing out on the comments on this post. My guess is you should write comments here, tho I will be more likely than normal to say “ah, I’ll respond to that later.”
Sorry, by “the draft of it” are you referring to… the grandparent comment? That is, you’re saying you’d like those comments here, in this thread? Or did you mean something else?
I meant “the draft of the future post,” which doesn’t exist yet.
Oh—are you referring, then, to the LW “share draft” feature? (I haven’t used this functionality, myself, which may be the reason for my confusion—apologies!)
Either that or Google Docs. But anyway, I currently don’t expect to get started on such a draft until Friday, probably, and so I think you should comment here if you want to get such comments out sooner than then.
This link seems to go to the wrong place.
Whoops, that was an artifact of a rewrite. Fixed, thanks.