As of today, the feed decided to present me with five year old posts (with few new comments mixed in; checking if a pair of them were duplicates, I noticed that they weren’t and found out a comment-based poll in https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/QBhoBJAxDHHuC7BeH/poll-on-de-accelerating-ai). That was quite interesting, and down that way lay discussions about curi.
That may be unhealthy amount of drama highlighted, but it showed, like, depth of the LW community history, which I saw a bit shallower. Meta-point from back there (about optimally ending discussions) seems like it ties into the recent discussions...
Currently I see the feed as tool to see new content faster and, correspondingly, to see more in total. It means a deficit of closure, though, of some functionality like “this post tries to summarize / amend and supersede / highlight gaps in / agree with an earlier bunch of work” (the said body of work being more than one early post, to eventually conclude this graph).
As of today, the feed decided to present me with five year old posts (with few new comments mixed in; checking if a pair of them were duplicates, I noticed that they weren’t and found out a comment-based poll in https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/QBhoBJAxDHHuC7BeH/poll-on-de-accelerating-ai). That was quite interesting, and down that way lay discussions about curi.
That may be unhealthy amount of drama highlighted, but it showed, like, depth of the LW community history, which I saw a bit shallower. Meta-point from back there (about optimally ending discussions) seems like it ties into the recent discussions...
Currently I see the feed as tool to see new content faster and, correspondingly, to see more in total. It means a deficit of closure, though, of some functionality like “this post tries to summarize / amend and supersede / highlight gaps in / agree with an earlier bunch of work” (the said body of work being more than one early post, to eventually conclude this graph).