Doesn’t that depend on the amount of work the reader needs to find a charitable reading?
Yes.
And whether the author would completely endorse the charitable reading?
A little bit.
It might be that the distinction often makes reference to usage of the principle of charity, but that is different from refusing to apply the principle to a rationality quote.
It is the case that when I see a quote that is being defended by appeal to the principle of charity I will be more inclined to downvote said quote than if I had not seen such a justification. As best as I can tell this is in accord with the evidence that such statements provide and my preferences about what kind of quotes I encounter in the ‘rationalist quotes’ thread. This is not the same thing as ‘refusing to apply the principle of charity’.
Fair enough. I think the nub of our disagreement is whether the author must endorse the interpretation for it to be considered a “charitable” reading. I think the answer is yes.
If the interpretation is an improvement but the author wouldn’t endorse, I think it is analytically clearer to avoid calling that a “charitable” reading, and instead directly call it steelmanning. There’s no reason to upvote a rationality quote that requires steelmanning (and many, many reasons not to). But if we all know what the author “really meant,” it seems reasonable to upvote based on that meaning.
That said, I recognize that it is very easy to mistakenly identify a charitable reading as the consensus reading (i.e. to steelman when you meant to read charitably).
I think the nub of our disagreement is whether the author must endorse the interpretation for it to be considered a “charitable” reading. I think the answer is yes.
I agree.
If the interpretation is an improvement but the author wouldn’t endorse, I think it is analytically clearer to avoid calling that a “charitable” reading, and instead directly call it steelmanning.
That’s a good distinction and a sufficient (albeit not necessary) cause to call it steelmanning.
There’s no reason to upvote a rationality quote that requires steelmanning (and many, many reasons not to). But if we all know what the author “really meant,” it seems reasonable to upvote based on that meaning.
In this case “in many cases outright denying the existence of victims of drone strikes” is rather strong and unambiguous language. It is clear that the author is just exaggerating his claims to enhance emotional emphasis but we have to also acknowledge that he went out of his way to say ‘outright denying’ when he could have said something true instead. He ‘really meant’ to speak a falsehood for persuasive effect.
What Eliezer did was translate from the language of political rhetoric into what someone might say if they were making a rationalist quote instead. That’s an excellent thing to do to such rhetoric but if that is required then the quote shouldn’t be in this thread in the first place. Maybe we can have a separate thread for “rationalist translations of inspirational or impressive quotes”. (Given the standard of what people tend to post as rationalist quotes we possibly need one.)
After considering RichardKennaway’s point, I’m coming to realize that Eliezer’s interpretation is not “charitable” because it isn’t clear that the original speaker would endorse Eliezer’s reading.
Maybe we can have a separate thread for “rationalist translations of inspirational or impressive quotes.”
Since this is what Rationality Quotes has apparently turned into, I’m not sure that the thread type is worth trying to save.
Yes.
A little bit.
It is the case that when I see a quote that is being defended by appeal to the principle of charity I will be more inclined to downvote said quote than if I had not seen such a justification. As best as I can tell this is in accord with the evidence that such statements provide and my preferences about what kind of quotes I encounter in the ‘rationalist quotes’ thread. This is not the same thing as ‘refusing to apply the principle of charity’.
Fair enough. I think the nub of our disagreement is whether the author must endorse the interpretation for it to be considered a “charitable” reading. I think the answer is yes.
If the interpretation is an improvement but the author wouldn’t endorse, I think it is analytically clearer to avoid calling that a “charitable” reading, and instead directly call it steelmanning. There’s no reason to upvote a rationality quote that requires steelmanning (and many, many reasons not to). But if we all know what the author “really meant,” it seems reasonable to upvote based on that meaning.
That said, I recognize that it is very easy to mistakenly identify a charitable reading as the consensus reading (i.e. to steelman when you meant to read charitably).
I agree.
That’s a good distinction and a sufficient (albeit not necessary) cause to call it steelmanning.
In this case “in many cases outright denying the existence of victims of drone strikes” is rather strong and unambiguous language. It is clear that the author is just exaggerating his claims to enhance emotional emphasis but we have to also acknowledge that he went out of his way to say ‘outright denying’ when he could have said something true instead. He ‘really meant’ to speak a falsehood for persuasive effect.
What Eliezer did was translate from the language of political rhetoric into what someone might say if they were making a rationalist quote instead. That’s an excellent thing to do to such rhetoric but if that is required then the quote shouldn’t be in this thread in the first place. Maybe we can have a separate thread for “rationalist translations of inspirational or impressive quotes”. (Given the standard of what people tend to post as rationalist quotes we possibly need one.)
After considering RichardKennaway’s point, I’m coming to realize that Eliezer’s interpretation is not “charitable” because it isn’t clear that the original speaker would endorse Eliezer’s reading.
Since this is what Rationality Quotes has apparently turned into, I’m not sure that the thread type is worth trying to save.
I get the impression from the analysis we have done that I am likely to essentially agree with most of your judgements regarding charitability.