As someone who cares about LessWrong in itself, and also about SIAI/FAI, I’d be interested in answers to both interpretations of “we” in the question.
Also, I think any in depth story about LessWrong is bound to talk about SIAI/FAI and the connection between the two.
I think for LW as a community the type of publicity you’re thinking about is just fine—we get some newcomers, they try the site, post some crap, get downvoted and either learn or leave. I guess the system will handle it, and we’ll end up with a bigger community in the end.
With SIAI I’d be a bit more careful, I’m concerned that they are too easily put in the “crank file”. Some journalists might easily go for the weirdness low-blow. Others (like the guy who did the main Singularity article for the Times) are more thoughtful and would be beneficial.
As someone who cares about LessWrong in itself, and also about SIAI/FAI, I’d be interested in answers to both interpretations of “we” in the question.
Also, I think any in depth story about LessWrong is bound to talk about SIAI/FAI and the connection between the two.
I think for LW as a community the type of publicity you’re thinking about is just fine—we get some newcomers, they try the site, post some crap, get downvoted and either learn or leave. I guess the system will handle it, and we’ll end up with a bigger community in the end.
With SIAI I’d be a bit more careful, I’m concerned that they are too easily put in the “crank file”. Some journalists might easily go for the weirdness low-blow. Others (like the guy who did the main Singularity article for the Times) are more thoughtful and would be beneficial.
(This is why I asked the question.)