I edited the Bayes Theorem / Bayesianism tag. There was a bracketed statement (something like [needs more]) next to the description of Bayesianism. At the time the description of "Bayesianism" was just:
Bayesianism is the broader philosophy inspired by the theorem.
I kept that text in there for now. It is accurate but seems misleading to me. Bayesianism is not primarily about Bayes Theorem at all. Which brings me to my main point:
1. Should the Bayes Theorem / Bayesianism tag be split up into two tags?
It is conceptually awkward to lump these two things together.
On the other hand, I expect this to never be a problem in practice.&nb...
Just putting this here for now:
It seems to me like there should be a "logical uncertainty" tag that's more general than "logical induction", or at least the "logical induction" tag should be renamed to the more general one.
Probably the more general one should be made, rather than re-naming. But collecting all the stuff about logical uncertainty sounds like uncommonly much work (because I don't expect searching for "logical uncertainty" to necessarily get all the important stuff?).
Addendum to this comment:
While the LW team are currently the final arbiters of what makes tags and tag descriptions, and I've been assigning the tag grades in almost teacher-like way, people are encouraged to argue with and debate any feedback or norms we've proposed. I do want the community to feel they have a large say in how the system is.
If you think the tag grade system should be different in some way, feel free to say so.
If you think a tag has been given the wrong grade, feel free to say so.
If you think feedback I've given about what would make a tag better is wrong, feel free to argue with it.
I've formed various opinions about what makes for good tags (and also changed those opinions a lot, particularly in response from other LW team members so far) but I doubt I've yet arrived at the perfect opinions, so feedback and pushback welcome from all.
To me, a good state is where we're collectively established enough of an idea of what good tags are that the ability to grade tags is granted to a larger group of tag moderators. And also that people are giving feedback and suggestions (or just making the changes in a do-ocracy way) a bunch between themselves. I think that'll be easier once Talk Pages are live.
Edited the courage tag, think it's C-class (Not sure if it needs integrating somehow with the groupthink and/or heroic responsibility tags? certainly some things in each of these don't fit under the others but there is a fair amount of overlap at present)
Edited self-deception & superstimuli, think they're now C-class (self-deception in particular, I'd like somebody who's actually read Elephant in the Brain to have a look over it, because it seems relevant but I'm not overly familiar)
Edited evolution and think it's now B-class
Are there any plans to implement tagging of whole sequences? I understand that tagging the first post in a sequence has a similar effect, but it might be more productive in some instances to have, for instance Slack and The Sabbath as the top link under the slack tag, rather than the individual posts from this sequence appearing in an order based on relevance.
Obviously that then creates issues about whether you want posts that appear in sequences to also appear individually or not, and whether you want all sequences to be taggable or not, and so on. I&apo...
My suggestions for changes/merges:
Change Alpha(algorithm family) to DeepMind, which would then include DM's other projects like Agent57 and MuZero. I think it's what more people would look for and it has more forwards compatibility.
Merge Blues and Greens and Coalitional Instincts; they're about basically the same thing. I don't like either name; "Tribalism" would probably be better. Blues and Greens is jargon that's not used enough, and coalitional instincts is too formal.
Merge Good Explanations(advice) into Distillation ...
I've edited the Heuristics and Biases tag. I think it's probably A-grade (I'm still getting a handle on exactly what an A-grade tag should feel like though, honestly).
That said, I'd like it if somebody could check the specifics of the three definitions, because I'm actually not completely sure, and check that it scans ok.
I've updated the Heuristics and Biases tag again btw. I don't think it's A-grade based on "I'd like to see more work done on it", but I think it's about as good as I personally am going to be able to get it. I'd really like somebody (yes you, fellow user reading this) to have a read through and make any adjustments that make sense and/or make it more comprehensive.
re: fallacies, I thought about it, and I think they're actually used pretty similarly, at least here on LW. Planning fallacy could easily be described as a bias generated by an 'imagine your ideal plan going correctly (and maybe add, say, 10%)' heuristic. At the very least, there's plenty overlap. Really what I envisioned for that section was making the point that a heuristic can be good (or just ok), because that was something that I didn't realise for a long time.
I created the Truth, Semantics, and Meaning tag. Then I noticed that there was an empty map/territory tag. I tagged most of the truth stuff as map/territory.
Map/territory strikes me as a better tag than truth. The huge overlap between the two makes me think maybe truth shouldn't be a tag. However, these two tags are different.
I missed this comment till now, sorry. Seems no one else opined yet, so my thoughts:
I don't feel like I can confidently say something about the value of distinguishing the two, but I can offer the broader questions I see.
I've seen already that tag creators will have one narrow thing in mind when they make a tag, and then other people will come along and apply it very broadly, e.g. Biology getting applied to anything involving a biological system at all even if it'd be of no interest to a biologist or someone look for biologist content. If two tags are very adjacent, I might expect things to haphazardly go in one or the other or both.
2. If it's important, how do we maintain two tags?
I could see preserving a space to just discuss the formal side separately from the psychological being quite valuable. Especially if there's a sustained back-and-forth on technical stuff. If it is, then I think there's effort we could put in to maintain the distinction in the face of entropy.
What are the norms around the number of tags that are appropriate for a post to get? There are some posts of mine that I wish more people would read, and piling relevant tags onto them looks like an easy way to accomplish this. However, I'm looking at some of the other tagging effort that's being done, and it seems like sometimes posts are being tagged with just one or two of a larger collection of say 4-5 tags that could be considered relevant.
Edit: Thanks for the responses, all.
I made a Hard Problem of Consciousness tag. it seems distinct enough from the Consciousness tag, which already has 46 posts.
A tag that I'm about to create would have the following description:
________ is a strategy for dealing with confusing questions or points of disagreement, such as "do humans have free will" or "when a tree falls in a forest with no-one to hear, does it make a sound". Rather than trying to give an answer in the form of "yes", "no", or "the question is incoherent", one seeks to understand the cognitive algorithm that gave rise to the confusion, so that at the end there is nothing left to explain.
Eliezer...
I've edited the Effective Altruism tag pretty heavily, and I now believe it qualifies as A grade.
I've also edited the Epistemic Modesty tag, and think it's now C or B grade.
I'd also like it if the X-risk and S-risk tags are consistent with one another-- I propose that "S-risks (Risk of astronomical suffering)" and "X-risks (Existential risk)" is the best format.
We have both an AI tag and an AI Risk tag. When should one use one or the other? Maybe we should rename AI Risk to AI Risk Strategy or AI Strategy so they're more clearly differentiated.
Should all HPMOR posts be tagged with the Fiction tag? Only the very first chapter is, currently, which makes sense. Conversely, all chapters of Three Worlds Collide are tagged with it. Which convention shall prevail?
(sidenote: I'm volunteering to mass-tag HPMOR if it's greenlighted)
Tagging everything makes sense to me as well, and, yes, the first installments should be relevance-boosted.
I perceive the consensus to have shifted in favor of the mass-tagging, which will begin soon. I'll report back.
Edit: all of HPMOR, 3WC, TBC have been tagged, and the tag description has been reupdated. Please boost the first chapters, and standalone pieces!
I created the Growth Stories tag, but that may have been a mistake, since the Postmortem & Retrospectives tag already exists. Apologies!
I'm not sure whether to create a new tag "Satisficer" or add "Mild Optimization" to the following posts (or do something else entirely):
I made an Epistemic Spot Check tag. i wasn't sure if i should create it at first, because although the content fits posts from anyone (i myself am thinking of making a post in that style), it currently only has content from Elizabeth. i decided to go ahead and create it anyway, even if just to experiment. also only after creating i remembered that there's an Epistemic Review tag, oh well.
I think there should be a tag for discussion of present-day AI progress outside of the context of alignment. For example "Understanding Deep Double Descent" https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FRv7ryoqtvSuqBxuT?lw_source=posts_sheet . Right now the only tag for that is the core tag "AI", which is too broad.
But I'm not sure what to call it. Ideas: "Prosaic AI", "Machine Learning", "Neural Networks", "AI Progress", "AI Capabilities".
The LessWrong dev team is hard at work creating Talk Pages/Discussion pages for tags. When they're done, every tag page will have a corresponding talk page which lets users discuss changes and improvements related to that tag.
We don't have that yet, so in the meantime, please make comments you have about tags (generally or for specific-tags) here. If you're talking about a specific tag, of course, make sure to link to it. You might also want to link back to your comment in the body of the tag description, e.g., "Tag Discussion here"
Examples of things you might comment about a tag:
Or:
Also, feel free to use this space to claim credit for tags you've worked hard to make great! (we'll give you karma!)
Other relevant pages about tagging