When a claim is shown to be incorrect, defenders may say that the author was just being “sloppy” and actually meant something else entirely. I argue that this move is not harmless, charitable, or healthy. At best, this attempt at charity reduces an author's incentive to express themselves clearly – they can clarify later![1] – while burdening the reader with finding the “right” interpretation of the author's words. At worst, this move is a dishonest defensive tactic which shields the author with the unfalsifiable question of what the author “really” meant.
There's a details box here with the title "⚠️ Preemptive clarification". The box contents are omitted from this narration.A case study of the “sloppy language” move
There's a details box here with the title "This essay is not about AI alignment per se". The box contents are omitted from this narration.
I recently read Bengio et al.'s “Scientist AI” [...]
Outline:
(00:52) A case study of the sloppy language move
(26:19) Why the sloppiness move is harmful
(26:42) 1. Unclear claims damage understanding
(28:13) 2. Secret indirection erodes the meaning of language
(28:30) 3. Authors owe readers clarity
(30:36) But which interpretations are plausible?
(31:44) 4. The move can shield dishonesty
(32:12) Conclusion: Defending intellectual standards
The original text contained 2 footnotes which were omitted from this narration.
First published:
July 1st, 2025
Source:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZmfxgvtJgcfNCeHwN/authors-have-a-responsibility-to-communicate-clearly)
Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO).
