= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vladimir_Nesov comments on Call for volunteers: Publishing the Sequences - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (42)
Titling the collection "The Sequences" doesn't seem optimal.
I'm inclined to to agree. What do you suggest as alternative? Think of a good one and persuade Luke and Eliezer!
A template that seems more reasonable goes like this: Main title: <descriptive phrase, something about rationality or decision making or even LessWrong> ("Essays on Human Rationality", say); Subtitle: <collection of blog posts, 2006-2009>.
Alternatively, publish the sequences as separate volumes of the same "Yudkowsky's blog posts collection", and title each volume with the name of the respective sequence.
I would personally avoid the word "blog", since it immediately makes me down-rank the book from "ooh, rationality!" to "oh, some blogger feels he's so important he's going to publish an eBook, eeew!"
(Title)The Sequences (Subtitle)Essays on Human Rationality
seems good to me, mostly because I can't think of a better title, but it definitely needs a subtitle to tell me what it is. (I actually like "The Sequences" as a title - it has a bit of an air of mystery, yet also a nice formal, logical sound - it feels like it will teach me something secret, in a coherent manner :))
That sounds pretty decent. Except possibly for the tautological oxymoron "human rationality" (tautological because it cannot be applied to animals, and AI is presumed to be rational (or at least logical) by definition, and an oxymoron because I'm yet to see a perfectly rational human being). Maybe "applied rationality" or even "Science and art of rationality".
I'd prefer the former. The posts in question contradict science (in some details). There is even a post or two directly contrasting the two types of reasoning.