Eliezer Yudkowsky

I do not want, okay, so for one thing, if somebody's trying to understand me, I do not want them steel manning my position.

I want them to describe, to like try to describe my position the way I would describe it, not what they think is an improvement.

I don't want to be interpreted charitably.

I want them to understand what I'm actually saying.

If they go off into the land of charitable interpretations, they're off in their land of the stuff they're imagining and not trying to understand my own viewpoint anymore.

So if there's two possible interpretations of what I'm saying and one interpretation is really stupid and whack and doesn't sound like me and doesn't fit with the rest of what I've been saying,

And one interpretation sounds like something a reasonable person who believes the rest of what I believe would also say.

Go with the second interpretation.

That's steel manning.

That's a good guess.

If, on the other hand, there's something that sounds completely whack and something that sounds a little less completely whack, but you don't see why I would believe in it, it doesn't fit with the other stuff I say...

but that sounds like less whack and you can sort of see, you could maybe argue it, then you probably have not understood it.

Do you believe in what?

Like these things that you would be presenting as like the strongest version of my perspective.

Do you believe what you would be presenting?

Do you think it's true?

Do you bet money on their beliefs when you believe them?

Are we allowed to do probability?

Sure.

You can state a probability.