cousin_it comments on Less Wrong Should Confront Wrongness Wherever it Appears - Less Wrong

24 Post author: jimrandomh 21 September 2010 01:40AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (159)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Vladimir_M 22 September 2010 08:05:17PM *  2 points [-]

Wei_Dai:

LW does seem to be working to some extent, in the core areas related to rationality.

What would be the concrete examples you have in mind, if by "working" we mean making progress in some hard area, or at least doing something that might plausibly lead to such progress (i.e. your above expressed benchmark of success)?

The only things I can think of are occasional threads on mathy topics like decision theory and AI cooperation, but in such cases, what we see is a clearly distinguished informal group of several people who are up to date with the relevant knowledge, and whose internal discussions are mostly impenetrable to the overwhelming majority of other participants here. In effect, we see a closely-knit expert group with a very high bar for joining, which merely uses a forum with a much wider membership base as its communication medium.

I don't think this situation is necessarily bad, though it does generate frustration whenever non-expert members try joining such discussions and end up just muddling them. However, if the goal of LW is defined as progress in hard areas -- let alone progress of wider-society-influencing magnitude -- then it is an unavoidable conclusion that most of what actually happens here is sheer dead weight, imposed by the open nature of the forum that is inherently in conflict with such goals.

Also, I believe Math Overflow has previously been cited as another such site, although I'm not personally familiar with it.

I wouldn't say that Math Overflow is a good counterexample to my claims. First, from what I understand, it's a place where people exchange information about the existing mathematical knowledge, rather than a community of researchers collaborating on novel problems. Second, it requires extremely high qualifications from participants, and the discourse is rigorously limited to making technical points strictly pertinent to the topic at hand. That's an extremely different sort of community than LW, which would have to undergo a very radical transformation to be turned into something like that.

Comment author: cousin_it 24 September 2010 12:23:45PM *  4 points [-]

In effect, we see a closely-knit expert group with a very high bar for joining, which merely uses a forum with a much wider membership base as its communication medium... most of what actually happens here is sheer dead weight, imposed by the open nature of the forum that is inherently in conflict with such goals.

I'd say the bar for joining isn't very high (you only have to know the right kind of undergraduate math, a lot of which was even covered on LW), and the open forum is also useful for recruiting new members into the "group", not just communication. Everytime I post some rigorous argument, I hope to interest more people than just the "regulars" into advancing it further.