I also might’ve expected some people to wonder, given their state interpretation, how come I’m not worried about stuff I mentioned in the whitelisting post anymore
I don’t read everything that you write, and when I do read things there seems to be some amount of dropout that occurs resulting in me missing certain clauses (not just in long posts by you, even while proofreading the introduction section of a friend’s paper draft!) that I don’t notice until quizzed in detail—I suspect this is partially due to me applying lossy compression that preserves my first guess about the gist of a paragraph, and maybe partially due to literal saccades while reading. The solution is repetition and redundancy: for example, I assume that you tried to do that in your quotes after the phrase “Let’s go through some of my past comments about this”, but only the quote
[R]elative reachability requires solution of several difficult ontological problems which may not have anything close to a simple core, including both a sensible world state representation and a perfect distance metric
implies to me that we’re moving away from a state-based way of thinking, and it doesn’t directly say anything about AUP.
I don’t read everything that you write, and when I do read things there seems to be some amount of dropout that occurs resulting in me missing certain clauses
Yes, this is fine and understandable. I wasn’t meaning to imply that responsible people should have thought of all these things, but rather pointing to different examples. I’ll edit my phrasing there.
but only the quote
I had a feeling that there was some illusion of transparency, (which is why I said “when I read it”), but I had no idea it was that strong. Good data point, thanks
I don’t read everything that you write, and when I do read things there seems to be some amount of dropout that occurs resulting in me missing certain clauses (not just in long posts by you, even while proofreading the introduction section of a friend’s paper draft!) that I don’t notice until quizzed in detail—I suspect this is partially due to me applying lossy compression that preserves my first guess about the gist of a paragraph, and maybe partially due to literal saccades while reading. The solution is repetition and redundancy: for example, I assume that you tried to do that in your quotes after the phrase “Let’s go through some of my past comments about this”, but only the quote
implies to me that we’re moving away from a state-based way of thinking, and it doesn’t directly say anything about AUP.
Yes, this is fine and understandable. I wasn’t meaning to imply that responsible people should have thought of all these things, but rather pointing to different examples. I’ll edit my phrasing there.
I had a feeling that there was some illusion of transparency, (which is why I said “when I read it”), but I had no idea it was that strong. Good data point, thanks