I think technical research should be posted here. Moreover, I think that merging IAFF and LW is a bad idea. We should be striving to attract people from mainstream academia / AI research groups rather than making ourselves seem even more eccentric / esoteric.
I am much more likely to miss things posted to LessWrong2.0. I eagerly await this forum’s incorporation into LW. Until then, I’m also conflicted about where to post.
I’m reading both but this seems the better forum if you want technical feedback from people who are carefully reading and thinking about what you write whereas LessWrong 2.0 is likely to have a more general audience who are more likely to engage with non-technical aspects of the work you may want feedback on.
The ideas should be posted at both the places, since, it is hard and also less important to measure relevance (in terms of “ideas” which people may be capable of providing) but easy and also necessary to maintain reach. There are relevant people everywhere. The greater the reach of the ideas, the greater would be the chance of their review or refutability.
However, I would like to learn the context of “relevant” here, as I’m still unsure of my answer.
I think technical research should be posted here. Moreover, I think that merging IAFF and LW is a bad idea. We should be striving to attract people from mainstream academia / AI research groups rather than making ourselves seem even more eccentric / esoteric.
I intend to cross-post often.
I am much more likely to miss things posted to LessWrong2.0. I eagerly await this forum’s incorporation into LW. Until then, I’m also conflicted about where to post.
I’m reading both but this seems the better forum if you want technical feedback from people who are carefully reading and thinking about what you write whereas LessWrong 2.0 is likely to have a more general audience who are more likely to engage with non-technical aspects of the work you may want feedback on.
The ideas should be posted at both the places, since, it is hard and also less important to measure relevance (in terms of “ideas” which people may be capable of providing) but easy and also necessary to maintain reach. There are relevant people everywhere. The greater the reach of the ideas, the greater would be the chance of their review or refutability.
However, I would like to learn the context of “relevant” here, as I’m still unsure of my answer.