Yes, innovation in food production could provide better, cheaper food without ethical issues. Yet, we may be stuck at a point where status quo stays more cost-effective for a while. This makes me hesitant to further prioritize growth and I sympathize with those who are even more cautious than I am.

...and I forgot that you disclaimed the thread with ”unnuanced takes”, and here I am trying to bring in nuance like a fool!

I realize that you are referring to people, but I think it needs to be pointed out that if your moral circle includes animals as the least well off then this has not been the case historically.

As a blanket statement this seems wrong and even harmful. Not all interesting ideas are controversial. Just to be clear: I’m against blocking people without clear evidence of malice.

Oh no

But that post seems to be using hashtags the way they are intended to be used. There are automated feeds that catch certain hashtags for instance. OP (and LLM’s in general) tend to misuse them as some rhetorical thing, which had surprisingly strong memetic appeal and still dominates the datasets.

I hope that @bsky.app implements native polling, that would be very useful for this kind of analysis!

It really seems like the field collectively just ignored Meehl’s critique. You might find this 2016 post by Andrew Gelman interesting: https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2016/05/06/needed-an-intellectual-history-of-research-criticism-in-psychology/

”Cogito, ergo…um” —Cartesian Indecisiveness

I’m hoping that the measure won’t become as much of a target in here. So far, the early adopters have been genuine and welcoming, and I appreciate that you can include links without a hassle.

Seems like a reasonable thing to do!

Thanks for the encouragement! I’ve been a lurker my whole life, but maybe this will be the focal point to change that.