[summary: * At least 30% more valuable to people sharing models.
** Not lojban level, but with some thought put into possible interpretations and clarifying wording.]
* At least 30% more valuable to people sharing models.
** Not lojban level, but with some thought put into possible interpretations and clarifying wording.
Comments
Alexei Andreev
Sometimes ambiguous claims can be good too. Just to get a quick sense of where people are at. And for some claims, it might be really hard to operationalize them. Like this one, "At least 30% more valuable to people sharing models" doesn't make much sense to me.
Andrea Gallagher
If claims are primitives, then all the interesting conversations will be at a parent level, which will need to stitch claims together to make an argument and form a perspective. I think many of the claims I'm seeing now are not actually primitives, and really need discussion around them to hash out the meaning.
I would love to see some mechanism to break a claim into both it's definitions of terms and supporting arguments (cruxes, if we want to use that term).
Timothy Chu
This doesn't seem like a controversial of a claim (be specific and not vague is one of the most timeless heuristics out there), but does seem worth highlighting.
I would like to add that my favorite claim so far ("Effective Altruism's current message discourages creativity") was not particularly well-specified. ("creativity" and "EA's current message" are not very specific imo).
Ted Sanders
(My first comment on Arbital. Hopefully it contributes.)
As someone who has traded on prediction markets for years, I agree with the sentiment.
Unfortunately, this claim itself seems really ambiguous. I voted neutral because I'm having a difficult time evaluating what the claim means. I appreciate the attempted clarification of 'at least 30% more valuable to people sharing models', but it leaves me confused. How is value measured? How would I be able to distinguish 20% more valuable from 40% more valuable? And who are these people sharing models? When and where are they doing their sharing?
I think we all agree that language will always have some wiggle room for uncertainty and interpretation. But in this particular case, I have no idea how to distinguish worlds where this statement is true from worlds where this statement is false. That's why I voted neutral.
I wish I could give a more constructive suggestion of how this claim could be reworded. I've spent a few minutes thinking about it but I don't have anything great. If anything, I'd remove the first asterisk.