“I don’t think inserting Knightian uncertainty is that helpful; the object-level stuff is usually the most important thing to be communicating.”
The main point of my post is that accounting for disagreements about Knightian uncertainly is the best way to actually communicate object level things, since otherwise people get sidetracked by epistemological disagreements.
“I’d follow the policy of first making it common knowledge that you’re reporting your inside views”
This is a good step, but one part of the epistemological disagreements I mention above is that most people consider inside views to be much a much less coherent category, and much less separable from other views, than most rationalists do. So I expect that more such steps are typically necessary.
“they’re wanting common knowledge that they won’t already share those views”
I think this is plausibly true for laypeople/non-ML-researchers, but for ML researchers it’s much more jarring when someone is making very confident claims about their field of expertise, that they themselves strongly disagree with.
“I don’t think inserting Knightian uncertainty is that helpful; the object-level stuff is usually the most important thing to be communicating.”
The main point of my post is that accounting for disagreements about Knightian uncertainly is the best way to actually communicate object level things, since otherwise people get sidetracked by epistemological disagreements.
“I’d follow the policy of first making it common knowledge that you’re reporting your inside views”
This is a good step, but one part of the epistemological disagreements I mention above is that most people consider inside views to be much a much less coherent category, and much less separable from other views, than most rationalists do. So I expect that more such steps are typically necessary.
“they’re wanting common knowledge that they won’t already share those views”
I think this is plausibly true for laypeople/non-ML-researchers, but for ML researchers it’s much more jarring when someone is making very confident claims about their field of expertise, that they themselves strongly disagree with.