= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
billswift comments on Getting Feedback by Restricting Content - 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 (10)
One idea at a time is great for getting feedback. It is not so good for a reader trying to develop understanding. And the "sequences" don't really help much, trying to read/reread several to try to get context for understanding something is too choppy. I don't know what the best trade-off may be, but I can hope things will improve.
The 'Eliezer' sequences were great. Without absorbing the foundations progressively like that it would have been extremely difficult to understand his most interesting points. Most other sequences I haven't found nearly as useful, for the 'choppy' reason that you mention.
(To be fair I suspect the "Could/Should/Would Agent" sequence was quite worthwhile. I put off giving it much more than an introductory skim because I have an instinctive aversion to the word 'should', even if the way they use it is not that of a categorical boundary presumption. Nevertheless, it is on my to-read list and quite probably warrants inclusion in the worthwhile sequence list.)