Thanks for writing this, sorry it took me a while to respond.
I think the question of "who is LessWrong for" is a really very reasonable question. I don't have an amazing settled answer for you that I can state in terms of a level of rationality.
The following are all components of the answer. LessWrong is for:
Implicit in all these is that there's a mission, and that to a large extent, LessWrong is for you if you will help that mission, and it's not for your if you'll detract from it. I can't definitively say "and this is the bar above which you'll be helpful vs not", though it's easier to look at someone's particular contributions and judge.
There's also a sense in which LessWrong is maybe the town hall for the Rationality community (that's more than just the LW community), and so for anyone in that community. I (and Habryka who get most of this philosophy from) are not completely sure about that.
And personally, I would also like that LessWrong is for anyone who shares my/LW values, though in practice I think it might be hard to make that true in all cases, e.g. if trades off against the community being healthy and productive.
I hope that helps some.
Hello Ruby,
thanks for the reply. I'm working on a follow-up piece to this, but it is still in the oven. I am still thankful for the response. A town hall... is a much more educated guess than mine. I would love for the mission to be more specific on the how's, but you are already working on it, which I appreciate.
I can imagine that some Rationalist people leaving, might also be a natural conclusion of crafting a space a certain way. Some of the ideas I have might be more for those on the frontiers, but it should also work for others as well. And are more focused on creating a healthy and productive space, in line with a set of goals and purposes.
Kindly,
Caerulea-Lawrence
Hello everyone reading,
I'm writing this because I do not believe fixing peripheral things on LW is enough. And even though I wrote about it in a comment, I wanted to elaborate and highlight the issue through writing a post about it too. Even though this is not nearly as succinctly written as many other authors here, I hope it can still serve its purpose as a call to action.
Even when the mods and users are engaged and participating, what I see in this current situation, is the underlying vagueness in purpose and identity. Issues that seem to have started way before my time (LW 2.0), are resurfacing, with the AI-user influx fanning the flames. I believe the crisis can be resolved, but it needs acknowledgment of the gravity of the situation and the necessary laborious work to fix it.
LW stands at a crossroads. Ahead lies clarification of essence, identity and focus.
At the crossroads
Firstly, what is the explicit mission of LW? Its identity?
Of course, there is also the history part about this being an initiative of Eliezer Yudkowsky, with a major focus being on AI alignment.
This purpose, however, doesn't specify for whom, at which level of rationality, towards what kind of complexity level of problems, or similarly relevant specifications. Which also makes it really hard to say if LW is really successful or not, at least with regard to its own purpose.
The road not to take
When I look at LW's identity, I am fearful of this lack of clarity, precision and focus. Without acknowledging the different roads, I dread seeing LW turn gradually into something like 'Hurdal Ecovillage' in Norway.
Hurdal Ecovillage started out as the poster child of Norwegian sustainable and ecological living. There were some concerns, but it got press, monetary support and focus, not only in Norway but internationally as well.
Now you find the original homepage hijacked by a new resident, and even the house-builders bankrupt. It is still operating, somewhat, but even on the Hurdal Ecovillage Facebook page, they make it very clear that Hurdal Ecovillage isn't one community working towards a shared goal: “This Facebook-page is operated by individuals living in the Ecovillage and does not represent an organization or a community.” (my translation)
So, if rationalists leave LW, isn't that a major red flag?
A pressing invitation
When I read about LW 2.0, and other posts that talk about the bigger issues, Killing Socrates, what I see are anxious and pressing invitations to talk about the fundamental issue of who LW is for, but without the issue being truly resolved.
Is there a willingness to really dive into the heart of the issue, and take a conscious and intentional stand, instead of letting the process run its slippery-slope course?
Facing the options directly, with open eyes and clear minds, and choosing rationally and with resolute hands?
A good process
An example that shows what I would like LW to achieve, would be 'Sieben Linden' .
(I'm not talking about their specific goals, of course.)
They have clear and detailed purposes and goals, processes that further these goals, and matching criteria for the selection of potential new members. With that foundation, they have weathered communal storms. (In German)
If there is enough value here, why go somewhere else, even when it's hard?
Unambiguous
Even though LW might have higher standards and attract a certain crowd more consistently, that doesn't immunize it from the underlying confusion, conflict and dissatisfaction inherent in lacking a clear and coherent purpose, necessary boundaries and matching selection criteria.
As a new member, there might be limits to how much my voice is in alignment with the direction of LW. Nevertheless, I do hope to see LW level up its identity in regard to clarity, focus and essence, and even to take part in that process. I read great reflections and thoughts, but I hope to also see them more consistently and clearly operationalized.
Whoever LW is for, let it be unambiguous.
Kindly, but firmly,
Caerulea-Lawrence