That's why when posting on my own blog I simplified and preserved the Less Wrong version as PDF as link at the bottom. I'm nicely suprised that you took the effort to read it. Now as I look at it I agree - the order of paragraphs could be better and some tangental / background / rabbit hole information removed.
All the feedback can be addressed / acted upon. If I received such feedback I would surely simplify, make some edits.
It was the "overall policy of not reading it in enough detail"that made me think about culture / diversity / echo chamber / filter bubble / confirmation bias.
I didn't read the whole post either, just skimmed it enough it realise that it was confusing for me and that I'd probably wouldn't really get the point you were making without reading it more than once.
I thought / I assumed that is the default state these days?
That's why starting from the TLDR summary. I even explained why I use this style of writing - writing for the internet.
(the original post was in continous format, the pagination happens only when "save as PDF")
The logic - if the summary is good enough then those interested in the content will skim it and maybe even read it. I also use headers so the table of contents is created, allowing to navigate to the relevant parts.
(from the time perspective it would be better to put the disclaimers and conflict of interest clauses towards the end, at the time I was thinking it provides a neat introduction and background)
For avoidance of the doubt - my intention is to highlight:
cultural issues
filter bubble
echo chamber
To reiterate:
initial feedback "too simple" - made it more detailed
subsequent feedback "too complex" - made it simpler
But then:
"I have an overall policy of not reading it in enough detail to make the call."
"I concretely do not expect to approve a version of the current post as your first post."
I guess it was a game over, but I tried anyway with posting in the open thread that got me banned.
I think I was expected to make a simpler post about somethign else to unlock my account, that would enable me to post the original thing?
Sounds overcomplicated. I didn't have much interest in producing something random just to unlock my account, the AI alignment metric was the primary objective.
I've submitted the link to Hacker News(to faciliate comments) and some other AI adjacent communities because:
critical feedback
constructive criticism
meaningful discussion
crowdsourcing brainpower
figuring out fail scenarios
And until we figure out a better defintion / metric / alignment I suggest we stick to LIFE as a good starting point.
I think I've figured out something relevant and I really wanted to share my thoughts on the forum in order to facilitate feedback / comments / discussion / critique. Ended up encountering some issues getting the content published and in the process getting my account banned.
Of course I could just move on, ignore, carry on with life, find some other place. But I think that my story illustrates some systematic issue and I genuinely want to raise awareness about gatekeeping and diversity.
The LessWrong/Alignment Forum admins monitor activity on both sites, and if someone consistently contributes to Alignment discussions on LessWrong that get promoted to the Alignment Forum, then it’s quite possible full membership will be offered.
It sounds like a lot of activities but it was once at a time, spread out in time:
message using widget
one moderator taking over, chatting via DM
after going cold: email the team
after being ignored: comment in the open thread
Freedom of Speech matters - Elon Musk and Twitter are pretty big on it. I think that on EA and LessWrong - there is no default Freedom of Speech - I think it is more like private property. Admins can be (and are) dictators but I think they are doing disservice to humanity: echo chambers, filter bubbles.
Regarding the actual content - I could be totally wrong. I could be delusional. I could be nuts. If any of these statements are true - I would like to know. It would help me navigate the consensual reality.
(nut job knowing they are crazy - can compensate for their behaviour and act accordingly - it is a nut job not knowing they are crazy that is dangerous)
(in other words - you are doing me a favour telling me that I'm nut job - however you need to explain it in a way that I'm able to understand on the level that is available to me)
I'm a human, living on Earth, my incentive is aligned with the survival.
If I didn't care I would not engage in a discussion. But I do care and I'm realistic that certain places (such as EA and LessWrong) attract certain audience. Me posting on personal blog would not be good enough, it would not achieve primary objective which was to gather feedback.
Back to the main point: diversity as competitive advantage.
As a newcomer to the Less Wrong forum surely I was categorised as "diversity".
It makes me wonder how many other users were rejected in a similar manner?
It makes me wonder what is the cost-benefits analysis of diversity, culture, filter bubble, echo chambers...
(I can handle criticism and rejection well, currently playing a bigger game talking about culture)
This is a crosspost from the new Animal Welfare Alignment Newsletter by Anima International. You can subscribe on Substack if you are interested in following these efforts. Audio reading also available on Substack.
The goals of this post are to:
1. Raise a question I see as crucially important to the goal of aligning AI to animal welfare...
Hello! I'm Justin Portela. I got hired by GWWC to make YouTube videos after AI in Context did such a kickass job.
My channel is using that same cinematic, high-production value beauty to talk about everything in the EA universe that isn't AI.
...
I used AI to fix transcription errors, rerrarange the ideas, and suggest tweaks to the title and some sentences.
Three of the most exciting projects to come out of EA in recent years are, in a vague sense, CEA spinouts:
* Kairos is directly a spinout of CEA and now handles most support for university AI safety groups. Basically everyone I've found who knows them is really excited about what they do
* NEST is an opinionated ideas-fi...
I'll be honest.
Your thoughts in the rejected post seem pretty scattered and that makes the post very hard to follow.
And if it's not easy to follow a post, then it's not easy to give feedback on either.
Thank you.
"very hard to follow" - honest, genuine feedback.
That's why when posting on my own blog I simplified and preserved the Less Wrong version as PDF as link at the bottom. I'm nicely suprised that you took the effort to read it. Now as I look at it I agree - the order of paragraphs could be better and some tangental / background / rabbit hole information removed.
All the feedback can be addressed / acted upon. If I received such feedback I would surely simplify, make some edits.
It was the "overall policy of not reading it in enough detail" that made me think about culture / diversity / echo chamber / filter bubble / confirmation bias.
I didn't read the whole post either, just skimmed it enough it realise that it was confusing for me and that I'd probably wouldn't really get the point you were making without reading it more than once.
Funny that you mention that.
I thought / I assumed that is the default state these days?
That's why starting from the TLDR summary. I even explained why I use this style of writing - writing for the internet.
(the original post was in continous format, the pagination happens only when "save as PDF")
The logic - if the summary is good enough then those interested in the content will skim it and maybe even read it. I also use headers so the table of contents is created, allowing to navigate to the relevant parts.
(from the time perspective it would be better to put the disclaimers and conflict of interest clauses towards the end, at the time I was thinking it provides a neat introduction and background)
For avoidance of the doubt - my intention is to highlight:
To reiterate:
But then:
I guess it was a game over, but I tried anyway with posting in the open thread that got me banned.
I think I was expected to make a simpler post about somethign else to unlock my account, that would enable me to post the original thing?
Sounds overcomplicated. I didn't have much interest in producing something random just to unlock my account, the AI alignment metric was the primary objective.
I've submitted the link to Hacker News (to faciliate comments) and some other AI adjacent communities because:
And until we figure out a better defintion / metric / alignment I suggest we stick to LIFE as a good starting point.