In that particular case, it happened because I wanted to respond to someone with views different from mine (I am a fairly strong proponent of the “merge”, of non-invasive brain-computer interfaces, and so on), but at the same time I happened to do it in an open-ended fashion, inviting a dialog and not a confrontation, and so it ended up being quite fruitful, we learned a lot from it and generated plenty of food for thought. This was my comment which started it:
That should work for topics which are already discussed, at least occasionally.
If the particular views in question are sufficiently non-standard, so that they are not even discussed (or, at least, the angle in question is not even discussed), then it requires a more delicate treatment (and one might not be in a rush to generate a debate; novel, non-standard things need time to mature; moving the “Overton window” is tricky). For example, with my first post on LessWrong, I went through a bunch of drafts, was showing drafts to people around me, cut some things from a version I ended up publishing in order to make it considerably shorter and to improve readability.
Now, if I want to continue this line of exploration and discussion, I would need to ponder how to go about it (I have written a number of draft texts recently outside of LessWrong, as part of the October-December https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7axYBeo7ai4YozbGa/halfhaven-virtual-blogger-camp, but the topic of AI existential safety is very delicate, so it’s not obvious what is the “correct way” to proceed).
If what you have in mind is as non-standard as this, then how to proceed is fairly non-trivial...
OK, I’ve seen this post before, I skimmed it, I have not voted on it.
My thinking (relevant for pre-AI times, of course) was, “no, specialization is the answer; yes, they are rocket engines, at least in hard sciences, and they work the best when one cuts unnecessary ‘mandatory courses’ from unrelated disciplines, while leaving students with enough freedom to explore widely if they want to; but mostly, the researchers are often most productive in hardcore disciplines like math and physics while they are young, so help them focus, push higher, more specialized courses, more specialized efforts, diversity within math, within physics, but not by reaching out to humanities”. So I seem to be a plausible debate counter-part in this sense.
So, why did not I respond? For several reasons, but, in part, because the turmoil around education is very strong already, with politics, with AI, with questions about relevance, and so on. The AI timelines are short (I think), and education-related timelines are long, so it does not look like we can affect this area too much. It’s such a mess already, there are plenty of locally optimal actions available, but a restructuring effort as global as this?
In that particular case, it happened because I wanted to respond to someone with views different from mine (I am a fairly strong proponent of the “merge”, of non-invasive brain-computer interfaces, and so on), but at the same time I happened to do it in an open-ended fashion, inviting a dialog and not a confrontation, and so it ended up being quite fruitful, we learned a lot from it and generated plenty of food for thought. This was my comment which started it:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/je5BwKe8enCq8DLrm/ai-40-a-vision-from-vitalik?commentId=yjFSoPjrNrtouDano
That should work for topics which are already discussed, at least occasionally.
If the particular views in question are sufficiently non-standard, so that they are not even discussed (or, at least, the angle in question is not even discussed), then it requires a more delicate treatment (and one might not be in a rush to generate a debate; novel, non-standard things need time to mature; moving the “Overton window” is tricky). For example, with my first post on LessWrong, I went through a bunch of drafts, was showing drafts to people around me, cut some things from a version I ended up publishing in order to make it considerably shorter and to improve readability.
It was not immediate big success and did not generate a debate, but it worked as a foundation for a number of my subsequent efforts, and was serving as an important reference point (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/WJuASYDnhZ8hs5CnD/exploring-non-anthropocentric-aspects-of-ai-existential).
Now, if I want to continue this line of exploration and discussion, I would need to ponder how to go about it (I have written a number of draft texts recently outside of LessWrong, as part of the October-December https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7axYBeo7ai4YozbGa/halfhaven-virtual-blogger-camp, but the topic of AI existential safety is very delicate, so it’s not obvious what is the “correct way” to proceed).
If what you have in mind is as non-standard as this, then how to proceed is fairly non-trivial...
Ah, I see that you are pointing to a specific post, https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/SHryHTDXuoLuykgcu/universities-as-rocket-engines-and-why-they-should-be-less.
OK, I’ve seen this post before, I skimmed it, I have not voted on it.
My thinking (relevant for pre-AI times, of course) was, “no, specialization is the answer; yes, they are rocket engines, at least in hard sciences, and they work the best when one cuts unnecessary ‘mandatory courses’ from unrelated disciplines, while leaving students with enough freedom to explore widely if they want to; but mostly, the researchers are often most productive in hardcore disciplines like math and physics while they are young, so help them focus, push higher, more specialized courses, more specialized efforts, diversity within math, within physics, but not by reaching out to humanities”. So I seem to be a plausible debate counter-part in this sense.
So, why did not I respond? For several reasons, but, in part, because the turmoil around education is very strong already, with politics, with AI, with questions about relevance, and so on. The AI timelines are short (I think), and education-related timelines are long, so it does not look like we can affect this area too much. It’s such a mess already, there are plenty of locally optimal actions available, but a restructuring effort as global as this?