Curious if you can say more about the diff. Also, is this true across karma scores? (i.e. does the rest of the voting population seem to vaguely agree/disagree with you?)
it contains an interesting anecdote which I think I’ve read before, and argues for a popular position. it also has some funny ai generated art. But what have I actually learned from it?
I think karma is composed of more things than post quality. There is also “how much interest is in the topic at the time of posting”, and “how smart do you need to be to understand the post” and “how controversial is the raised opinion”, and “how much do voters themselves benefit from the post appearing polular”. Probably more.
Curious if you can say more about the diff. Also, is this true across karma scores? (i.e. does the rest of the voting population seem to vaguely agree/disagree with you?)
There just seems to be less information content. For example, this post currently has 60 karma:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tRRkj249gdDL4mued/why-even-experts-don-t-know-what-to-do-about-ai-risk
it contains an interesting anecdote which I think I’ve read before, and argues for a popular position. it also has some funny ai generated art. But what have I actually learned from it?
In my experience, karma correlates rather well with post quality (after accounting for how much time it’s been on the site).
I think karma is composed of more things than post quality. There is also “how much interest is in the topic at the time of posting”, and “how smart do you need to be to understand the post” and “how controversial is the raised opinion”, and “how much do voters themselves benefit from the post appearing polular”. Probably more.
I agree. I was making a more narrow claim that post quality is one of the things that correlate pretty well with karma.