= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
XiXiDu comments on Q&A with Shane Legg on risks from AI - 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 (21)
The main question is in italics, the rest is supposed to be a more technical or detailed restatement of the question in italics. Shane Legg received both, the question in italics and the remarks.
Do you think I should change the formatting or annotate that the non-italics part is supposed to be a restatement of the original question?
Yes, I think you should, when you read something like
... you expect that "Foo foo bar" is the answer, at least until you run into something whose formatting makes it look even more like an answer:
... and then you go back and think "oh those things I just read weren't the answer". Having everything in the question in italics would make it clearer, even if that's not how the formatting was when you asked the question.
Thanks, I updated the formatting. Is it better now?
It's better, I don't think readers would be confused now (as I was when I read your post).
(minor formatting quibble and bikeshedding follows)
It still doesn't scan that well, though; I'd suggest having everything related to the question in italics (there's no real need to seperate the question from the additional detail), and then indent the answer.
But this is really just quibbling :P
Done.