= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Wei_Dai comments on [META] Karma for last 30 days? - 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 (173)
I really don't see this. It looks like the main clause of decline is that spontaneous top-level postings are not enough to make up for the loss of the enormous subsidy of a good writer posting as a full-time job. 3 examples of hellish troll-feeding would be nice.
Why don't SI people post more paper drafts and other writings here for discussion? Seems like a cheap way to both help improve the SNR here and give SI more ideas and feedback.
That's not rationality content. AI content is sort of grandfathered in because of the SI sponsorship and Eliezer's posting on it, but most of the LW audience is attracted by the rationality content, I think.
I thought AI content is considered on-topic here more because there is a strong argument, based on our current best understand of rationality, that we should make a significant effort to push the Singularity and hence the entire future of the accessible universe in a positive direction. I guess it's understandable that you might not want to overplay this and end up alienating people who are more interested in other rationality topics, but we seem still far from that point, judging from the relative lack of complaints and recent voting on AI and Singularity-related posts.
I don't know how much paper content CFAR is planning to produce, but it would escape this objection.
I've been doing just that, and it often has been done by others - for example, Luke & Anna's "Intelligence Explosion: Evidence and Import" was posted several times, I believe. They may have improved the SNR, but I can't say there seem to be very much feedback or ideas...
I'm thinking of these papers which were posted here only after they were finished and published. Also this one which I posted here because Carl didn't. Also Paul Christiano posting stuff on his own blog instead of LW.
That's strange. I find LW feedback useful on my posts, and assumed that would be the case for others. Can you give an example of a post that didn't gather useful feedback and ideas?
Well, look at your own links.
As for my own feedback, I keep a public list in http://www.gwern.net/Links#fn2 Going backwards through the last 3:
I guess it wasn't clear, but I was suggesting that if those papers had been posted here while they were still in draft form (as opposed to "finished and published"), they would have received more discussions since people would have more incentives to participate and potentially influence the final output.
As for your posts, I think the reason for lack of useful feedback is that they are mostly summaries of many academic papers and it's hard to give useful feedback without spending a lot of time to read those papers which nobody has an sufficient incentive to.
I got some comments for my drafts. There were some valuable suggestions in both threads which I incorporated, but I had hoped for a little more feedback.
If you post more drafts in the future, I think it would help to add more context: Who is the target audience? What are you hoping to accomplish with the papers? (If we knew that we might care more about helping you to improve them.) Do they contain any ideas that are new to LW?
Thanks, that's a good suggestion.