Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: efenj 19 September 2017 01:21:56AM 4 points [-]

Thank you, very much for making this effort! I love the new look of the site — it reminds me of http://practicaltypography.com/ which is (IMO) the nicest looking site on the internet. I also like the new font.

Some feedback, especially regarding the importing of old posts.

  • Firstly, I'm impressed by the fact that the old links (with s/lesswrong.com/lesserwrong.com/) seem to consistently redirect to the correct new locations of the posts and comments. The old anchor tag links (like http://lesswrong.com/lw/qx/timeless_identity/#kl2 ) do not work, but with the new structuring of the comments on the page that's probably unavoidable.

  • Some comments seem to have just disappeared (e.g. http://lesswrong.com/lw/qx/timeless_identity/dhmt ). I'm not sure if these are deliberate or not.

  • Both the redirection and the new version, in general, somehow feel slow/heavy in a way that the old versions did not (I'd chalk that up to my system being to blame, but why would it disproportionately affect the new rather than the old versions).

  • Images seem to be missing from the new versions (e.g. from http://lesswrong.com/lw/qx/timeless_identity/https://www.lesserwrong.com/static/imported/2008/06/02/manybranches4.png for instance does not exist)

  • Citations (blockquotes) are not standing out very well in the new versions, to the extent that I have trouble easily determining where they end and the surrounding text restarts. (A possible means of improving this could perhaps be to increase the padding of blockquotes.) For an example, see http://lesswrong.com/lw/qx/timeless_identity .

  • Straight quotation marks ("), rather than (“ ”) look out of place with the new font (I have no idea how to easily remedy this.) For examples, yet again see http://lesswrong.com/lw/qx/timeless_identity .

Comment author: ingres 13 September 2017 09:43:49PM 2 points [-]
  1. Yes.

  2. Total, I would think.

Comment author: efenj 14 September 2017 02:00:42AM 1 point [-]

Thanks for the very fast reply!

I interpreted 2 correctly (in line with your reading), for 1, the "you would likely leave" part misled me.

Comment author: efenj 13 September 2017 09:36:19PM 1 point [-]

Firstly, thank you for the survey and for the option of exporting one's answers!

Questions that I found ambiguous or without a clear, correct answer (for future reference, since changing the survey midway is a terrible idea):

  1. Is it fundamentally important to you that the 'rationality movement' ever produces a measurable increase in general sanity? (i.e, if you were shown conclusive proof it will not you would likely leave)?

What do you answer if you believe that it is fundamentally important, and worth trying, but still unlikely to succeed (i.e. we're probably doomed, but we should still make an effort)?

  1. Do you attend Less Wrong meetups? Yes, once or a few times

Attended once or a few times, in total, or attend once or a few times per year/other reasonable time period?

In response to Bring up Genius
Comment author: efenj 13 June 2017 05:03:09PM 3 points [-]

Thank you very much for translating this! Typos (if you care):

s/But I am happy that a have a great family/But I am happy that I have a great family/

s/and Slavic roots, so as an European/and Slavic roots, so as a European/

Comment author: Alexei 01 April 2017 05:06:32PM 3 points [-]

My guess for Wikipedia's success is that they were one of the first; and there was more of a sense of an online community back then. Also it's easier to create Wikipedia content than, say, a good explanation. StackOverflow succeeded because asking and answering questions is pretty easy, you get instant feedback, and they got community management right. (They solved exactly one problem well!) The founders were also really well known so it was easy for them to seed the platform.

I can't open-source the platform as long as I'm doing the for-profit venture, since the platforms are too similar. However, if at some point I have to stop, then I'll be happy to open source everything at that point.

Comment author: efenj 01 April 2017 05:55:47PM 0 points [-]

Thanks for the fast reply!

The founders were also really well known so it was easy for them to seed the platform.

OTOH Eliezer is also quite well-known, at least in the relevant circles. For example, at my non-American university, almost everyone doing a technical subject, that I know, has heard of and usually read HPMoR (I didn't introduce them to it). Most don't agree with the MIRI view on AI risk (or don't care about it...), but are broadly on board with rationalist principles and definitely do agree that science needs fixing, which is all that you need to think that something like Arbital is a Good Idea. It's a bit of a shame that HPMoR was finished before Arbital was ready.

I'm also not entirely sure about the comparison with Wikipedia, regarding ease of creating entries vs. writing explanations — in some cases, writing a logical explanation, deriving things from first (relevant) principles is easier than writing an encyclopaedic entry, having the appropriate citations (with Wikipedia policy encouraging secondary over primary sources). Writing things well is another challenge, but that's the case for both.

The remaining arguments are probably sufficient, in themselves, though.

I can't open-source the platform as long as I'm doing the for-profit venture, since the platforms are too similar. However, if at some point I have to stop, then I'll be happy to open source everything at that point.

That makes sense!

Comment author: efenj 01 April 2017 04:59:12PM 2 points [-]

Thank you for the summary of the state of Arbital!

It seems that while you haven't achieved your full goals, you have created a system that Eliezer is happy with, which is of non-zero value in itself (or, depending on what you think of MIRI, the AI alignment problem etc., of very large value).

It'd be interesting to work out why projects like Wikipedia and StackOveflow succeeded, while Arbital didn't, to such an extent. Unfortunately, I don't really have much of an idea how to answer my own question, so I'll be among those who want all the answers, but don't want to write them... (Too niche a target? Luck? Lack of openness to contributors???)

Finally — this is obviously a huge request considering the amount of work you must have put into Arbital — if you're not planning to re-use much of the existing code and if you don't think that it would harm the new "Arbital 2.0", would you consider open-sourcing the existing platform? (This is distinct from the content being under CC BY-SA, though kudos to whoever made that decision!)

Comment author: Pimgd 30 June 2016 01:01:30PM 2 points [-]

Paywall for the "conclusion" part.

Comment author: efenj 01 July 2016 01:49:21AM 1 point [-]

Disable javascript (and possibly reload in a private window).

Comment author: ingres 04 April 2016 09:19:00PM *  2 points [-]

Oh I'm sorry about that. It's actually an option in the software but I didn't turn it on because I couldn't imagine anybody would use it. ^^;

Fixing now.

EDIT: Should be an option now when you complete the survey, thanks!

Comment author: efenj 07 April 2016 02:59:35PM 1 point [-]

Thanks! (Sorry for the late reply.)

Comment author: efenj 04 April 2016 06:18:25PM *  1 point [-]

Is there an easy way of printing one's replies (or saving them permanently for offline use), other than either:

  1. Printing out each separate page;
  2. Waiting for all the answers to be published and extracting one's own row (though that's suboptimal since the questions will presumably be absent and also, one has to wait)?

In the old survey/census I could print (to pdf) the entire form in one go.

Thanks for organising the survey!

Comment author: efenj 01 June 2015 08:01:28PM 20 points [-]

For those curious what Luke Muehlhauser will be doing see here. (Sorry if this has been mentioned somewhere on LessWrong previously.)

View more: Next