This is probably the post I got the most value out of in 2018. This is not so much because the precise ideas (although I have got value out of the principle of meta-honesty, directly), but because it was an attempt to understand and resolve a confusing, difficult domain. Eliezer explores various issues facing meta-honesty – the privilege inherent in being fast-talking enough to remain honesty in tricky domains, and the various subtleties of meta-honesty that might make it too subtly a set of rules to coordinate around.
This illustration of “how to contend with potential dealbreakers for a new philosophical tool” was more useful to me than the tool itself. I learned a bit about how to become more honest from this post, and more generally, how to improve my policies and coordination procedures in a careful, sane way.
I don’t think that currently, meta-honesty is a good concept to coordinate around in large groups. It may or may not be too complicated to ever work on the 100-300 person scale. If it could work there, I think there is more distillation work that’s needed.
I do think it works fairly well among individuals who know each other well and have the time to build up high resolution models of each other.
I can’t remember whether I’ve explicitly used meta-honesty while communicating with others, but I’ve built up some internal models that rely more broadly on “meta-trust”. (I have some posts-in-the-works ironing out what that means)
This is probably the post I got the most value out of in 2018. This is not so much because the precise ideas (although I have got value out of the principle of meta-honesty, directly), but because it was an attempt to understand and resolve a confusing, difficult domain. Eliezer explores various issues facing meta-honesty – the privilege inherent in being fast-talking enough to remain honesty in tricky domains, and the various subtleties of meta-honesty that might make it too subtly a set of rules to coordinate around.
This illustration of “how to contend with potential dealbreakers for a new philosophical tool” was more useful to me than the tool itself. I learned a bit about how to become more honest from this post, and more generally, how to improve my policies and coordination procedures in a careful, sane way.
I don’t think that currently, meta-honesty is a good concept to coordinate around in large groups. It may or may not be too complicated to ever work on the 100-300 person scale. If it could work there, I think there is more distillation work that’s needed.
I do think it works fairly well among individuals who know each other well and have the time to build up high resolution models of each other.
I can’t remember whether I’ve explicitly used meta-honesty while communicating with others, but I’ve built up some internal models that rely more broadly on “meta-trust”. (I have some posts-in-the-works ironing out what that means)