People here can be a bit blunt. Compare to trying to present to a room full of annoyingly honest scientists, their non scientist nerd friends, and a few non scientist nerds who aren’t really friends with anyone and are tolerated because their critiques reveal actual flaws.
If that’s the group you want to talk to, and your point would hold up to scrutiny if made well, I recommend asking a language model with memory disabled and in a fresh context to “think through post’s claims somewhat generously initially, but then rigorously, and to then critique the post claims and structure like an interested but skeptical lesswronger”, and ask for “readability and structure advice as long as its not in grammar or engagement optimization directions”. Do not ask the model to rewrite your post, folks can usually tell and it’s against the rules; instead, edit your post manually, then start a new conversation with the model and try again. If you have a post that the model reviews as well structured and doesn’t have major critiques, it’s somewhat less likely to immediately fail on lesswrong.
f it starts feeling too easy you might have messed up.
… it immediately felt too hard. :’) Also, since I don’t have a good measure on what’s organized & what’s not, I genuinely think ME doing this would result in an even messier article with a ton of random edits scattered around that I think looks cleaner. I just simply can’t measure for something better than this current version, & thus if I tried to make a better version, I fundamentally couldn’t tell if I made a better version or a worse version.
I guess what I’m trying to say is I’d super appreciate if you tried to iteratively edit it a bit to help this idea which is worth doing reach it’s full potential & not just be a messy article hinting at a good idea but everyone who reads it gets stuck up on the messiness part.
People here can be a bit blunt. Compare to trying to present to a room full of annoyingly honest scientists, their non scientist nerd friends, and a few non scientist nerds who aren’t really friends with anyone and are tolerated because their critiques reveal actual flaws.
If that’s the group you want to talk to, and your point would hold up to scrutiny if made well, I recommend asking a language model with memory disabled and in a fresh context to “think through post’s claims somewhat generously initially, but then rigorously, and to then critique the post claims and structure like an interested but skeptical lesswronger”, and ask for “readability and structure advice as long as its not in grammar or engagement optimization directions”. Do not ask the model to rewrite your post, folks can usually tell and it’s against the rules; instead, edit your post manually, then start a new conversation with the model and try again. If you have a post that the model reviews as well structured and doesn’t have major critiques, it’s somewhat less likely to immediately fail on lesswrong.
Oh thanks! I actually really appreciate it! This seems super useful!
It’s hard to be both correct and novel. My suggested prompt there is a tall order; if it starts feeling too easy you might have messed up.
You will probably still get a negative to neutral reaction because most posts do. But less so.
Have you read the sequences or equivalent material by chance? I haven’t, admittedly, but I know most things they contain. Recommend if not.
… it immediately felt too hard. :’)
Also, since I don’t have a good measure on what’s organized & what’s not, I genuinely think ME doing this would result in an even messier article with a ton of random edits scattered around that I think looks cleaner.
I just simply can’t measure for something better than this current version, & thus if I tried to make a better version, I fundamentally couldn’t tell if I made a better version or a worse version.
I guess what I’m trying to say is I’d super appreciate if you tried to iteratively edit it a bit to help this idea which is worth doing reach it’s full potential & not just be a messy article hinting at a good idea but everyone who reads it gets stuck up on the messiness part.
Thanks, super appreciate the help! :DD