Normal mode: 500+ word post each day

Hard mode: Above, and 200+ word comment each day

Nightmare mode: Above, and 3,500+ word post each week (replacing one of the 500+ word posts)

I don't know. Some frames:

• Scope sensitivity: Some amount of it should be able to outweigh a certain amount of meaning.
• Virtue ethics: I am willing to push through a lot of suffering if it means something; the simple ratio of the two does not determine whether the overall thing is worthwhile.
• Deontology: it does kind of differ on whether you're responsible for the suffering happening or not.

It's also plausible to me that I am more coming at this from a deontological feeling of "One should not kill everyone if one has a good reason" rather than "The world is net positive".

I talked with Zvi Mowshowitz who is quite skilled at seeing all the things being communicated at once, about the last section of dialogue above, where Evrart Claire talks about being transparent with Joyce Messier. This befuddled me for a while.

He said that what is being communicated is:

1. I know that you're talking with my primary political opponent.
2. That's okay with me, I'm still happy to work with you.
3. Also you haven't got anything on me; nothing I've ever said is actually incriminating (as per the plausible deniability point).
   1. (By implication: And of course, if we're going to talk about shady stuff, don't forget that I've got stuff on you.)

I didn't quite notice that 1 and 2 were intended to be communicated. I don't think of myself as someone to hide, so number 1 was not something I noticed.

Anyway, I am personally kind of annoyed that both (a) many things are being communicated at once, and (b) not all of them can be said explicitly (and in fact the explicit content of the words is kind of the opposite of true and of what's being discussed). I wish either everyone stopped doing this, or I were better at tracking it all. (Zvi roughly said "That's what your brain is built for, tracking this all.")

I think he said to me that he disagrees with them, on their practical utility.

My vague model of Habryka didn’t find those very helpful for thinking about this problem.

FWIW I think that much our epistemic environment is too far from the true/right path. I think Habryka is able to think for himself in public better than most, and this has involved being one of the most intellectually aggressive arguers on the internet. I am not sure that being more in touch with everyone and their feedback would be healthy. For similar reasons, I don’t tweet. I suspect I would become more insane.

I feel like they’re trying to brand more in the direction of being advisors for others’ money, but aren’t willing to go all the way? I’m not sure why, I guess they want to keep more relative power in the relationships they build.

Perhaps "7 Pathologies of Rationalists".

If you are uncertain about what I would feel comfortable doing, and what I wouldn't, feel free to ask me!

Do you mean via DM, or like via a quick take that Wei Dai has written here? Or some secret third thing?