Epistemic status: I’m fairly sure “ethics” does useful work in building human structures that work. My current explanations of how are wordy; I think there should be a briefer way to conceptualize it; I hope you guys help me with that.
My concerns here are not epistemic; they are about length, summarization, and chunking. I’ll offer two suggestions framed as questions:
Please tell the reader what you’re going to tell us right away. What is your central point? Are you primarily proposing a new ethical framework? Are you primarily aiming to improve particular areas; e.g. to AI safety?
Wouldn’t this be better presented as a sequence of posts? To think in reverse, could you make a good argument for why a single post of ~6000+ words is better?
I enjoy LessWrong because of its epistemic norms but often dislike* longer than necessary articles. I found my way here because of the Sequences; let’s do more of them! I would rather see ~600 to 1200 word self-contained pieces that link to other parts, which might be: prerequisite material, literature reviews, lengthy examples, personal motivations, and so on.
* I want authors to succeed at focusing reader attention and community discussion. Excessive length can hurt more than help.
I like this. Having strong norms for how posts should be broken up ( prereqs, lit review, examples, motivations, etc… ) seems like it would be good for engendering clarity of thought and for respecting peoples time and focus. However, it would need to be built on the correct norms and I don’t know what those norms should be. Figuring it out and popularizing it seems like a worthwhile goal though. Good luck if you are picking it up!
My concerns here are not epistemic; they are about length, summarization, and chunking. I’ll offer two suggestions framed as questions:
Please tell the reader what you’re going to tell us right away. What is your central point? Are you primarily proposing a new ethical framework? Are you primarily aiming to improve particular areas; e.g. to AI safety?
Wouldn’t this be better presented as a sequence of posts? To think in reverse, could you make a good argument for why a single post of ~6000+ words is better?
I enjoy LessWrong because of its epistemic norms but often dislike* longer than necessary articles. I found my way here because of the Sequences; let’s do more of them! I would rather see ~600 to 1200 word self-contained pieces that link to other parts, which might be: prerequisite material, literature reviews, lengthy examples, personal motivations, and so on.
* I want authors to succeed at focusing reader attention and community discussion. Excessive length can hurt more than help.
I like this. Having strong norms for how posts should be broken up ( prereqs, lit review, examples, motivations, etc… ) seems like it would be good for engendering clarity of thought and for respecting peoples time and focus. However, it would need to be built on the correct norms and I don’t know what those norms should be. Figuring it out and popularizing it seems like a worthwhile goal though. Good luck if you are picking it up!