I've made a big set of expert opinions on AI and my inferred percentages from them. I guess that some people will disagree with them. 

I'd appreciate hearing your criticisms so I can improve them or fill in entries I'm missing. 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HH1cpD48BqNUA1TYB2KYamJwxluwiAEG24wGM2yoLJw/edit?usp=sharing

Though sometimes the obligation to answer is right, right? I guess maybe it's that obligation works well at some scale, but then becomes bad at some larger scale. In a coversation, it's fine, in a public debate, sometimes it seems to me that it doesn't work.

I think the motivating instances are largely:

• Online debates are bad
• Freedom Of Information requests suck

I think I probably backfilled from there.

I do sometimes get persistant questions on twitter, but I don't think there is a single strong example.

Sadly you are the second person to correct me on this @Paul Crowley was first. Ooops. 

The solution is not to prevent the questions, but to remove the obligation to generate an expensive answer.

Good suggestion.

Thank you, this is the kind of thing I was hoping to find.

What changes do you think the polyamory community has made?

I find this a very suspect detail, though the base rate of cospiracies is very low.

"He wasn't concerned about safety because I asked him," Jennifer said. "I said, 'Aren't you scared?' And he said, 'No, I ain't scared, but if anything happens to me, it's not suicide.'"

https://abcnews4.com/news/local/if-anything-happens-its-not-suicide-boeing-whistleblowers-prediction-before-death-south-carolina-abc-news-4-2024

To be more explicit about my model, I see communities as a bit like people. And sometimes people do the hard work of changing (especially as they have incentives to) but sometimes they ignore it or blame someone else.

Similarly often communties scapegoat something or someone, or give vague general advice.