I’d argue the thing about LW-style rationality doesn’t matter as much as most people think it does due to over indexing on the vibe of the sequences. No matter how much I hear folks say “that’s not LW-style rationality” I just look at what LW-style rationalists actually do and it’s much closer to Chapman’s notion of rationality than actual meta-rationality. Maybe at best I’d say something like playing at meta-rationality without actually giving up the key stuff about rationality that holds people back?
Anyway, that’s not an actual argument, just claiming I think there’s something important going on here that means saying he’s not talking about LW-style rationality (as written about or aspired to) misses the point.
I’d argue the thing about LW-style rationality doesn’t matter as much as most people think it does due to over indexing on the vibe of the sequences. No matter how much I hear folks say “that’s not LW-style rationality” I just look at what LW-style rationalists actually do and it’s much closer to Chapman’s notion of rationality than actual meta-rationality. Maybe at best I’d say something like playing at meta-rationality without actually giving up the key stuff about rationality that holds people back?
Anyway, that’s not an actual argument, just claiming I think there’s something important going on here that means saying he’s not talking about LW-style rationality (as written about or aspired to) misses the point.