Ed can come across as agitated and shrill, and I never stop picturing him as exactly like Jude Law's character in Contagion. But. He's still an important counterpoint to the unexamined mainstream junk, which says more about the world than about him or his style. As we've seen play out with other areas of discourse, the middle shrinks, we're forced into a dialectic tug of war between absurdly polarized extremes, and it all comes to crisis. We might rediscover caution, epistemic humility, compromise and middle-ground, but only after rising absurdity and then some kind of punishment

▲

simianwords 3 hours ago | parent [-]

You make good points at the end but I don't know why it is important to be unprincipled about it?

> He's still an important counterpoint to the unexamined mainstream junk, which says more about the world than about him or his style.

▲

throw-23 an hour ago | parent [-]

> I don't know why it is important to be unprincipled about it?

Well, making new mathematical errors while trying to point out someone else's math errors isn't unprincipled. Even in the face of errors, it's implicit that things like transparency and data-driven decisions are considered desirable.

The next point is superficial, but I think you'll find that it tracks in general. Consider 3 headlines and how much discourse really boils down to this type of messaging: "AI can make you rich!" vs "Use AI or be left behind!" vs "AI Industry is Lying to You".

The substance behind the headlines may or may not tell you something true about the world. At the same time, only the last headline/content seems even remotely concerned with principles, implying in this case that lying is bad. The other two are just seeking to spur interest and motivation with greed or with fear.

▲

simianwords an hour ago | parent [-]

I don't know what you are trying to say. I do believe both that AI can make you rich and that one should use AI or be left behind. Much the same way we can say the same thing about internet.

> The other two are just seeking to spur interest and motivation with greed or with fear.

It just seems like your opinion but even in that case I don't see why we are talking about intention? Ultimately the world would be better if one just said truth so there's no excuse for this

▲

throw-23 41 minutes ago | parent [-]

If you're interested in truth and not principles, why do you bring up principles? If you're interested in principles, why do you expect them from skeptics but not from boosters?

	▲	simianwords 32 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> If you're interested in truth and not principles, why do you bring up principles? Principles are not the same as intention though. Even if some articles are biased and have certain intentions, I don't mind if they are principled and stick to truth. I expect principles from both. I don't expect non biased reporting however. I guess you are conflating them. Principles in this case is to own mistakes, correct them and value truth and yes I do expect boosters to own mistakes. Your first two examples don't show lack of principles - they just show bias and intentions.