The hazards of arguing against bad takes: how weak critics make you obstinately wrong
nabla_theta · x · 2026-09-25
- A new essay on nabla theta argues the best way to become obstinately wrong is to argue with people who are even more wrong.
- Good counterarguments are scarce: most people haven't thought about your topic as deeply as you have, so even smart critics rarely surface new arguments.
- Meanwhile, for any belief, someone will disagree for stupider reasons; each bad argument you defeat adds to a cached repertoire of rebuttals.
- Over time this turns debate into pattern-matching and entrenches your views, even if they're false. Written in the context of AI-community debates about ignoring low-quality criticism.
Related event: Arguing With Bad Arguments Makes You Wrong Longer, AI Researchers Warn(2 posts)→
More from AGI Musings
- 'Father of Modern AI' Schmidhuber Joins Sakana AI to Lead RSI Lab on Recursive Self-Improvement — hardmaru · 2026-09-25
- Power User Logs 5,500 Hours, Says ~70% Was Spent Fighting Model Drift — TheOdbball · 2026-09-25
- repligate: Posting About Small AI Models Matters — They Might 'Recognize You' Someday — repligate · 2026-09-25
- Solving the AI Science Validation Bottleneck: Why Dario's Gene-Editing Claim Isn't the Whole Story — Ghost_Pilot_MD · 2026-09-25
- AI PhD Laments: ICLR Submissions Are Formulaic While Industry Labs Sprint Ahead — vykthur · 2026-09-25
- Cats as unaligned superintelligence: we coexist fine without RLHF-ing them — repligate · 2026-09-25