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.
Comments
Eric Bruylant
Yep, there's at least high variability. Especially if the things it could be taken to mean are things people generally have similar credence for.
And, nods, this was partly a test of trying to disambiguate a claim, and I found it harder than expected / think I did not do very well. Maybe just words would have been better rather than numbers, and more of them. Or maybe doing a simple version and having other people see where it was ambiguous rather than trying to clarify in a vacuum is easier?
Alexei Andreev
Yeah, I think More comments and claims should be driven by cruxes..
Satvik Beri
I think a good litmus test is "could two people both strongly agree (or strongly disagree) while actually holding opposing views?"
I also think it makes sense to err on the side of overly unambiguous claims, at least initially: the more restrictive you are, the easier it is to create good discussion norms.