I'm petty sure that when he talks about the damage of knowledge to intelligence he doesn't mean that the intelligence shouldn't have this knowledge in generation time. Rather, the issue in training - which you may ver  well call a skill issue - is that by default local ad hoc explanations create superficial predictive success and get in the way of more general explanations. So the issue isn't having less knowledge, but rather having less early memorization.

expect such a crisis to have at most modest effects on timelines to existentially dangerous ASI being developed

It may by my lack of economics education speaking, but how can it it be the case? Are current timelines not relying heavily on the ability of the labs to raise huge capital for building huge datacenters and for paying many people who are smarter than current frontier models to manually generate huge amounts of quality data? Wouldn't such a crisis make it much harder for them, plausibly beyond what makes direct economic sense, due to what responsible investers think a responsible invester is expected to do?

Also, while the pro Israeli map is plausibly about being the underdog, I'm not sure that it is the point of the pro Palestinian one. I think that one try to say that they were robbed of what was rightfully their - not that they are weaker. And even the pro israel map is very likely about "arabs already have enough land" - if it was about power, Iran and other non arab Muslim countries would be included

I'm not convinced that there is that deep a phenomenon here.  Many of the examples are current, and may be explained just as well by current ideologies that focus on "power dynamics" or want everyone to have equa  power. Or by the somewhat plausible heuristic that groups are amoral and will therefore use their power unfairly. 

I don't think that this solution gives you everything that you want from semantic categories. Assume for example that you have a multidimensional cluster with heavy tails (for simplicity, assume symmetry under rotation). You measure some of the features, and determine that the given example belongs to the cluster almost surely. You want to use this fact to predict the other features. knowing the deviation of the known features is still relevant for your uncertainty about the other features. You may think about this extra property as measuring "typicality", or as measuring "how much does it really belong in the cluster.

Grammatically, the most obvious interpretation is a universal quantification

Here I mostly agree

I think it's best to put such qualified language into your statements from the start.

Here I don't, for the same reason that I don't ask about "water in the refrigerator outside eggplant cells". Because pragmatics are for better or worse part of the language.

Would very much like to read such a post. I have the basic intuition that it is a soft form of "witness" (as in complexity/cryptography), but it is not very developed.

I think it would be helpful, when dealing with such foundational topics, to tabu "justification", "validity", "reason" and some related terms. It is too easy to stop the reduction there, and forget to check what are their cause and function in our self-reflecting epistemic algorithm.

The question shouldn't be whether circular arguments are "valid" or give me "good reason to believe", but whether I may edit the parts of my algorithm that handle circular arguments, and as a result expect (according to my current algorithm) to have stronger conviction in more true things.

Your bayesian argument, that if the claim was false the circle is likely it to end in contradiction- I find convincing, because I am already convinced to endorse this form of bayesian reasoning. Because as a normative it has properties that I have already learned to make sense according to earlier heuristics that were hopefully good. Including the heuristic that my heuristics are sometimes bad and I want to be reasonably robust to that fact. Also, that this principle may not be implemented absolutely without sacrificing other things that I care about more.

5 disagree and no dislikes on a rare political position - if only the rest of the world was that sane.

Hi, just saw the old thread. Anyway as an Israeli my answer is strongly 2, though it depends what you mean by ideology. The maximum that most Israelis would be willing to give due to national security considerations is less than she minimum that Palestinians are willing to get due to national pride and ethos - in terms of land degree of autonomy, and mostly solution for the descendants of the 1948-9 refugees inside Israel