Less Wrong is based on reddit code, which means we can create subreddits with relative ease.
Right now we have two subreddits, Main and Discussion. These are distinguished not by subject matter, but by whether a post is the type of thing that might be promoted to the front page or not (e.g. a meetup announcement, or a particularly well-composed and useful post).
As a result, almost everything is published to Discussion, and thus it is difficult for busy people to follow only the subjects they care about. More people will be able to engage if we split things into topic-specific subreddits, and make it easy to follow only what they care about.
To make it easier for people to follow only what they care about, we're building the code for a Dashboard thingie.
But we also need to figure out which subreddits to create, and we'd like community feedback about that.
We'll probably start small, with just 1-5 new subreddits.
Below are some initial ideas, to get the conversation started.
Idea 1
- Main: still the place for things that might be promoted.
- Applied Rationality: for articles about what Jonathan Baron would call descriptive and prescriptive rationality, for both epistemic and instrumental rationality (stuff about biases, self-improvement stuff, etc.).
- Normative Rationality: for articles about what Baron would call normative rationality, for both epistemic and instrumental rationality (examining the foundations of probability theory, decision theory, anthropics, and lots of stuff that is called "philosophy").
- The Future: for articles about forecasting, x-risk, and future technologies.
- Misc: Discussion, renamed, for everything that doesn't belong in the other subreddits.
Idea 2
- Main
- Epistemic Rationality: for articles about how to figure out the world, spanning the descriptive, prescriptive, and normative.
- Instrumental Rationality: for articles about how to take action to achieve your goals, spanning the descriptive, prescriptive, and normative. (One difficulty with the epistemic/instrumental split is that many (most?) applied rationality techniques seem to be relevant to both epistemic and instrumental rationality.)
- The Future
- Misc.
With the exception of these two comments, all suggested splits are nonsensical; the lines used for division are unclear and the sections created serve no real purpose. If your goal is to promote growth, evolve into categories. As it stands, most of these suggestions would just split an already fragmented community.
I do notice a pattern among the suggestions though; people would like to see MIRI-centric stuff filtered out. To whoever is in charge or LessWrong, this is liable to seem like a bad thing, like it will exacerbate an existential concern, like the very act of allowing the premise to be considered is immoral, even. (I'm sure at least one MIRI Fellow feels that way.) This could not be more patently untrue; lack of advancement of rationality is what's making the threat worse. Sectioning MIRI off makes it easier to focus on. Yes, it creates the potential for it to be specifically ignored, but with the existing community, that's simply not going to be the case. Let's face it: This site is MIR's masturbation blog. Sectioning off the MIRI parts allows other parts to take root and grow. This is the growth that is needed most. You don't want MIRI to dominate any section of subsection of LessWrong in any way. It will dominate inevitably, exacerbating the effect can only impede growth. By chance, people coming to LessWrong for the non-MIRI parts are liable to become aware of the threats MIRI preaches, achieving the critical effect, but that won't happen without the initial growth.
And now, to shoot that idea in the foot, I propose further category growth: I have spent considerable time thinking about the nature of discussion and how to improve and facilitate it. The answer is: Factions. Even on major points where I disagree with MIRI, I would be willing to stay silent if it would mean having a subsection where I, and others like myself, could advance the goal we see fit to ensure the best possible future for everyone. That's right: Not only am I recommending you take a step back, I'm recommending encouraging your own competition.
My seed proposal:
Note that this is entirely upside-down with how things currently are. That is intentional. Why do you think I'm bypassing MIRI if not for its completely upside-down and backwards way of suffering the exact same problems as everyone else?
Viva la evolution!
It's like you guys reject the premise that things improve post-revolution in this one specific way, because, while actively acknowledging you can't predict the future, you still think you understand it best. I'll give you a hint as to why: The people you're looking for have been raised to know better than to trust anyone who comes looking for them.
Whatever.
This is just another dumb post by another loony with strong opinions. Showing awareness of that sure isn't evidence enough for me to overcome my cognitive biases, especially not if this guy has the gall to mention them to me in my own paraphrased internal monologue.
...
Wait, what?
Nah, it's just a trick. Let's just go do what we set out to do. What are the actual odds we're wrong? Certainly, with all the evidence we've collected, there is only one Bayesian measurement/conclusion. It's not like we only collected the data we wanted to see.
Then again...
Maybe I'm being too harsh. You're only human, after all. Feel free to make mistakes.
In the interest of avoiding inferential silence: the fucking Hell are you talking about? Pretend MIRI never existed and explain to me why I want this "post-MIRI" website you speak of. (Let's say that, eg, CSER still exists and still lists Stephen Hawking among its advisers.)