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

Comment author: Raemon 08 October 2017 05:59:40AM 7 points [-]

Thanks for doing this. I think the survey is pretty valuable and would definitely like to see more people involved to make it happen. If money turned out to be an obstacle* I'd be willing to pay for crowdfunding stuff to make it happen.

(* I don't actually think money will turn out to easily translate into ability-to-do-it, for reasons )

My tentative thought/vote is "make it easier to take parts of the survey and auto-save as you go".

Comment author: ingres 08 October 2017 07:00:24AM 5 points [-]

Also I forgot to acknowledge your incredibly generous offer of money.

The good news for your bank account is that money is not a bottleneck, the kind of work that needs to be done is simply not on the table for the amount of money we could conceivably raise to try and have it done.

I used to be a really big fan of EY's The Unit Of Caring essay (and still am), but I've since come to understand that it's seemingly bullettight reasoning does in fact have some leaky holes. One of which is that the amounts of stuff people are willing to give you as gifts in kind through free professional contributions and the like simply dwarfs the available funds that might be donated for the vast majority of small causes. For example, employing the services of Said Achmiz would normally cost a staggering amount of money, but as a 'loyal troop' he's willing to put in organic effort on the project that I'd be hard pressed to pay for at any amount.

Comment author: Raemon 08 October 2017 06:20:31AM 1 point [-]

Oh, I was referring to this which had sounded like an actionable plan you were considering:

Right now I'm exploring the possibility of setting up a site similar to yourmorals so that the survey can be effectively broken up and hosted in a way where users can sign in and take different portions of it at their leisure. Further gamification could be added to help make it a little more fun for people. Which leads into...

Comment author: ingres 08 October 2017 06:50:33AM 0 points [-]

Ah yes, that very much is and both things (easy-to-take-parts and auto-save) are definitely must-have features for that project.

Comment author: Raemon 08 October 2017 05:59:40AM 7 points [-]

Thanks for doing this. I think the survey is pretty valuable and would definitely like to see more people involved to make it happen. If money turned out to be an obstacle* I'd be willing to pay for crowdfunding stuff to make it happen.

(* I don't actually think money will turn out to easily translate into ability-to-do-it, for reasons )

My tentative thought/vote is "make it easier to take parts of the survey and auto-save as you go".

Comment author: ingres 08 October 2017 06:06:25AM 0 points [-]

My tentative thought/vote is "make it easier to take parts of the survey and auto-save as you go".

That is not actionable, unless you have a magic way for me to make that happen.

Comment author: berekuk 05 October 2017 01:11:08PM 1 point [-]

So, what happened?

This post is hidden from Main and the survey "is expired and no longer available", even though the post mentions that it should run for 10 more days. I wanted to share it with Russian LW community, will it be back in some form later?

Comment author: ingres 07 October 2017 02:06:34AM 0 points [-]

Right sorry, I got distracted by life a bit there. I'll write up a post explaining what happened to the LW Survey soon and where I'm planning to go from here.

In response to Feedback on LW 2.0
Comment author: ingres 01 October 2017 07:23:49PM 6 points [-]

Hi, over here at the LessWrong Survey team we've also been collecting reactions to LW 2.0:

https://lwsurvey.obormot.net/Reports/2017-EarlyReport1

https://lwsurvey.obormot.net/Main/ResponsesFromSSC

Comment author: Benito 17 September 2017 07:06:45PM 5 points [-]

FYI R:AZ is shorter than The Sequences by a factor of 2, which I think is a substantial improvement. Not that it couldn't be shorter still ;-)

Comment author: ingres 17 September 2017 08:41:54PM 1 point [-]

Oh huh, TIL. Thanks!

Comment author: DragonGod 17 September 2017 01:37:12AM 1 point [-]

I expect that for most domains (possibly all), Lesswrong consensus is more likely to be right than wrong. I haven't yet seen reason to believe otherwise; (it seems you have?).

Comment author: ingres 17 September 2017 03:42:37PM *  1 point [-]

Just so we're clear here:

Profession (Results from 2016 LessWrong Survey)

Art: +0.800% 51 2.300%

Biology: +0.300% 49 2.200%

Business: -0.800% 72 3.200%

Computers (AI): +0.700% 79 3.500%

Computers (other academic, computer science): -0.100% 156 7.000%

Computers (practical): -1.200% 681 30.500%

Engineering: +0.600% 150 6.700%

Finance / Economics: +0.500% 116 5.200%

Law: -0.300% 50 2.200%

Mathematics: -1.500% 147 6.600%

Medicine: +0.100% 49 2.200%

Neuroscience: +0.100% 28 1.300%

Philosophy: 0.000% 54 2.400%

Physics: -0.200% 91 4.100%

Psychology: 0.000% 48 2.100%

Other: +2.199% 277 12.399%

Other "hard science": -0.500% 26 1.200%

Other "social science": -0.200% 48 2.100%

The LessWrong consensus is massively overweighted in one particular field of expertise (computing) with some marginal commentators who happen to do other things.

As for evidence to believe otherwise, how about all of recorded human history? When has there ever been a group whose consensus was more likely to be right than wrong in all domains of human endeavor? What a ludicrous hubris, the sheer arrogance on display in this comment cowed me, I briefly considered whether I'm hanging out in the right place by posting here.

Comment author: DragonGod 17 September 2017 09:32:00AM 2 points [-]

Pie in the sky: the Yudkowsky sequences edited, condensed, and put into an Aristotelian/Thomsian/Scholastic order. (Not that Aristotle or Thomas Aquinas ever did this but the tradition of the scholastics was always to get this pie in the sky.) It might be interesting to see what an experienced book editor would advise doing with this material.

Doesn't Rationality: From AI to Zombies achieve this already?

Comment author: ingres 17 September 2017 01:46:37PM 0 points [-]

Rat:A-Z is like...a slight improvement over EY's first draft of the sequences. I think when Craig says condensed he has much more substantial editing in mind.

Comment author: Habryka 16 September 2017 11:26:35PM 1 point [-]

A wiki feels too high of a barrier to entry to me, though maybe there are some cool new wiki softwares that are better than what I remember.

For now I feel like having an about page on LessWrong that has links to all the posts, and tries to summarize the state of discussion and information is the better choice, until we reach the stage where LW gets a lot more open-source engagement and is being owned more by a large community again.

Comment author: ingres 17 September 2017 12:32:21AM 3 points [-]

Seconding SaidAchmiz on pmwiki, it's what we use for our research project on effective online organizing and it works wonders. It's also how I plan to host and edit the 2017 survey results.

As far as the high barrier to entry goes, I'll repeat here my previous offer to set up a high quality instance of pmwiki and populate it with a reasonable set of initial content - for free. I believe this is sufficiently important that if the issue is you just don't have the capacity to get things started I'm fully willing to help on that front.

Comment author: SaidAchmiz 16 September 2017 04:01:04AM 3 points [-]

If you have a more-legible quality signal (in the James C. Scott sense of "legibility"), and a less-legible quality signal, you will inevitably end up using the more-legible quality signal more, and the less-legible one will be ignored—even if the less-legible one is tremendously more accurate and valuable.

Your suggestion is not implausible on its face, but the devil is in the details. No doubt you know this, as you say "this sketch has many problems of its own". But these details and problems conspire to make such a formalized version of the "expert's vote" either substantially decoupled from what it's supposed to represent, or not nearly as legible as the simple "people's vote". In the former case, what's the point? In the latter case, the result is that the "people's vote" will remain much more influential on visibility, ranking, inclusion in canon, contribution to a member's influence in various ways, and everything else you might care to use such formalized rating numbers for.

The question of reputation, and of whose opinion to trust and value, is a deep and fundamental one. I don't say it's impossible to algorithmize, but if possible, it is surely quite difficult. And simple karma (based on unweighted votes) is, I think, a step in the wrong direction.

Comment author: ingres 16 September 2017 04:17:28AM 1 point [-]

As far as an algorithm for reputation goes, academia seems to have something that sort of scales in the form of citations and co-authors:

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2017/08/the-problem-with-prestige.html

It's certainly a difficult problem however.

View more: Next