you just acknowledged in #21 that there are multiple criteria and the analysis isn’t as clear-cut as the original article presented.
(I didn’t acknowledge that. Instead of claiming I made a mistake, this presents your criticism as my own opinion, which is unfriendly and negative.)
LMD could have got you there months ago.
(This accuses me of irrationality and hypocrisy. It’s saying I resist error correction and stay wrong. But it’s begging the question. We didn’t actually start, let alone finish, a debate which concluded that I was wrong. This follows on from the previous part which falsely claimed that I had already conceded, in which case this wouldn’t beg the question.)
i think it reflects in how quiet the forum is
maybe it’s just a bandwidth issue. i don’t know if creating for an audience is a full time thing for you.
(Implying that I don’t respond enough and/or my posts are too low effort.)
i pointed this out in the capitalism forum thread too that i almost stopped because your reply felt closed. i believe you when you say you didn’t mean it that way but it’s definitely an issue for this forum to work as an error correction system.
your article frames the problem as people not caring enough but what if some of them cared and just stopped trying? saying you outclass people at debate reinforces this. it tells the copilots they’re right to stay quiet.
This is a lot of negativity without the specifics needed for me to effectively make changes or debate your claims. The claims were not established in prior discussions that reached conclusions. You have not yet requested to debate anything (yet seem to have already concluded that I’m wrong about some things). And it’s too many complaints to address simultaneously. I’m surprised because I thought you had given positive feedback. For example, you wrote in AGI, LLMs, CR and CF :
oh right, my bad.
i think i buy it for now.
Ok the binary evaluation makes sense to me.
I read your intuition articles and it makes sense
i’m confused about something
ok cool, that clarifies a lot.
Your point about intellectual tolerance and humility brings up an interesting AI design question.
cool, that clears it up.
one of the most fascinating ideas I came across was on sam harris podcast it would take a lot of work to understand it deeply.
Then I explained it to you and you said:
oh ok thanks.
That’s only from the first 30 posts in one topic. Another example was when you Liked this post of mine:
I can often write short, curt posts that aren’t warm and friendly, or I can write fewer posts. Social dynamics can cause them to be taken as unfriendly, but they’re actually me being friendly and replying more than most public intellectuals would have.
You’re welcome to post a lot and ask a lot of questions as long as I can write short replies, and not reply to other things, without it being taken negatively. These things go together :) (Bringing up the same topic again that didn’t get an answer is fine btw, though it’s usually best to change something, e.g. doing more of your own analysis or asking a different question about it.)
Now you’ve raised this issue again without responding to the answer I already gave that I thought you had already accepted.
Also, if you know of any similar forum which is at least half as good as this one, or another philosopher who is open to debate, please share.