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.

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:

Source:

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.