= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MendelSchmiedekamp comments on A Less Wrong singularity article? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (210)
It's as though no one here has ever heard of the bystander effect. The deadline is January 15th. Setting up a wiki page and saying "Anyone's free to edit." is the equivalent to killing this thing.
Also this is a philosophy, psychology, and technology journal, which means that despite the list of references for Singularity research you will also need to link this with the philosophical and/or public policy issues that the journal wants you to address (take a look at the two guest editors).
Another worry to me is that in all the back issues of this journal I looked over, the papers were almost always monographs (and baring that 2). I suspect that having many authors might kill the chances for this paper.
This prediction was right on the money.
This is being tracked on PredictionBook by the way. I have some reservations about the usefulness of PB in general, but one thing that is quite valuable is its providing a central "diary" of upcoming predictions made at various dates in the past, that would otherwise be easy to forget.
I know. I was hoping somebody'd take the initiative, but failing that I'll muster the time to actually contribute to the article at some point.
Yeah, I'm having my doubts about the whole crowdsourcing thing, too.
I've started hacking away at the wiki page today; wanna be coauthors?