It fails to acknowledge or build upon standard responses and objections that are well-known on LessWrong.
The LessWrong website is 14 years old and the community behind it older still. Our core readings [link] are over half a million words. So understandably, there’s a lot you might have missed!
Unfortunately, as the amount of interest in LessWrong grows, we can’t afford to let cutting-edge content get submerged under content from people who aren’t yet caught up to the rest of the site.
I do want to emphasize a subtle distinction between “you have brought up arguments that have already been brought up” and “you are challenging basic assumptions of the ideas here”. I think challenging basic assumptions is good and well (like here), while bringing up “but general intelligences can’t exist because of no-free-lunch theorems” or “how could a computer ever do any harm, we can just unplug it” is quite understandably met with “we’ve spent 100s or 1000s of hours discussing and rebutting that specific argument, please go read about it <here> and come back when you’re confident you’re not making the same arguments as the last dozen new users”.
I would like to make sure new users are specifically not given the impression that LW mods aren’t open to basic assumptions being challenged, and I think it might be worth the space to specifically rule out that interpretation somehow.
Well, I don’t think you have to acknowledge existing stuff on this topic if you have a new and good argument.
Added: I think the phrasing I’d prefer is “You made an argument that has already been addressed extensively on LessWrong” rather than “You have talked about a topic without reading everything we’ve already written about on that topic”.
I do think there is an interesting question of “how much should people have read?” which is actually hard to answer.
There are people who don’t need to read as much in order to say sensible and valuable things, and some people that no amount of reading seems to save.
The half a million words is the Sequences. I don’t obviously want a rule that says you need to have read all of them in order to post/comment (nor do I think doing so is a guarantee), but also I do want to say that if you make mistakes the the Sequences would teach you not to make, that could be grounds for not having your content approved.
A lot of the AI newbie stuff I’m disinclined to approve is the kind that makes claims that are actually countered in the Sequences, e.g. orthogonality thesis, treating the AI too much like humans, various fallacies involving words.
How do you know you have a new and good argument if you don’t know the standards thing said on the topic
And relatedly, why should I or other readers on LW assume that you have a new and good argument without any indication that you know the arguments in general?
This is aimed at users making their very first post/comment. I think it is likely a good policy/heuristic for the mod team in judging your post that claims “AIs won’t be dangerous because X”, tells me early on that you’re not wasting my time because you’re already aware of all the standard arguments.
In a world where everyday a few dozen people who started thinking about AI two weeks ago show up on LessWrong and want to give their “why not just X?”, I think it’s reasonable to say “we want you to give some indication that you’re aware of the basic discussion this site generally assumes”.
I find it hilarious that you can say this, while simultaneously, the vast majority of this community is deeply upset they are being ignored by academia and companies, because they often have no formal degrees or peer reviewed publication, or other evidence of having considered the relevant science. Less wrong fails the standards of these fields and areas. You routinely re-invent concepts that already exist. Or propose solutions that would be immediately rejected as infeasible if you tried to get them into a journal.
Explaining a concept your community takes for granted to outsiders can help you refresh it, understand it better, and spot potential problems. A lot of things taken for granted here are rejected by outsiders because they are not objectively plausible.
And a significant number of newcomers, while lacking LW canon, will have other relevant knowledge. If you make the bar too high, you deter them.
All this is particularly troubling because your canon is spread all over the place, extremely lengthy, and individually usually incomplete or outdated, and filled in implicitly from prior forum interactions. Academic knowledge is more accessible that way.
Writing hastily in the interests of time, sorry if not maximally clear.
Explaining a concept your community takes for granted to outsiders can help you refresh it, understand it better, and spot potential problems.
It’s very much a matter of how many newcomers there are relative to existing members. If the number of existing members is large compared to newcomers, it’s not so bad to take the time to explain things.
If the number of newcomers threatens to overwhelm the existing community, it’s just not practical to let everyone in. Among other factors, certain conversation is possible because you can assume that most people have certain background and even if they disagree, at least know the things you know.
The need for getting stricter is because of the current (and forecasted) increase in new user. This means we can’t afford to become 50% posts that ignore everything our community has already figured out.
LessWrong is an internet forum, but it’s in the direction of a university/academic publication, and such publications only work because editors don’t accept everything.
the vast majority of this community is deeply upset they are being ignored by academia and companies, because they often have no formal degrees or peer reviewed publication, or other evidence of having considered the relevant science.
my guess is that that claim is slightly exaggerated, but I expect sources exist for an only mildly weaker claim. I certainly have been specifically mocked for my username in places that watch this site, for example.
I certainly have been specifically mocked for my username in places that watch this site, for example.
This is an example of people mocking LW for something. Portia is making a claim about LW users’ internal emotional states; she is asserting that they care deeply about academic recognition and feel infuriated they’re not getting it. Does this describe you or the rest of the website, in your experience?
lens portia’s writing out of frustrated tone first and it makes more sense. they’re saying that recognition is something folks care about (yeah, I think so) and aren’t getting to an appropriate degree (also seems true). like I said in my other comment—tone makes it harder to extract intended meaning.
Well, I disagree. I have literally zero interest in currying the favor of academics, and think Portia is projecting a respect and yearning for status within universities onto the rest of us that mostly doesn’t exist. I would additionally prefer if this community were able to set standards for its members without having to worry about or debate whether or not asking people to read canon is a status grab.
sure. I do think it’s helpful to be academically valid sometimes though. you don’t need to care, but some do some of the time somewhat. maybe not as much as the literal wording used here. catch ya later, anyhow.
strong agree, single upvote: harsh tone, but reasonable message. I hope the tone doesn’t lead this point to be ignored, as I do think it’s important. but leading with mocking does seem like it’s probably why others have downvoted. downvote need not indicate refusal to consider, merely negative feedback to tone, but I worry about that, given the agree votes are also in the negative.
Thank you. And I apologise for the tone. I think the back of my mind was haunted by Shoggoth with a Smiley face giving me advice for my weekend plans, and that emotional turmoil came out the wrong way.
I am in the strange position of being on this forum, and in academia, and seeing both sides engage in the same barrier keeping behaviour, and call it out as elitist and misguided in the other but a necessary way to ensure quality and affirm your superior identity in your own group is jarring. I’ve found valuable and admirable practices and insights in both, else I would not be there.
Any group that bears a credential, or performs negative selection of some kind, will bear the traits you speak of. ’Tis the nature of most task-performing groups human society produces. Alas, one cannot escape it, even coming to a group that once claimed to eschew credentialism. Nonetheless, it is still worthwhile to engage with these groups intellectually.
I do want to emphasize a subtle distinction between “you have brought up arguments that have already been brought up” and “you are challenging basic assumptions of the ideas here”. I think challenging basic assumptions is good and well (like here), while bringing up “but general intelligences can’t exist because of no-free-lunch theorems” or “how could a computer ever do any harm, we can just unplug it” is quite understandably met with “we’ve spent 100s or 1000s of hours discussing and rebutting that specific argument, please go read about it <here> and come back when you’re confident you’re not making the same arguments as the last dozen new users”.
I would like to make sure new users are specifically not given the impression that LW mods aren’t open to basic assumptions being challenged, and I think it might be worth the space to specifically rule out that interpretation somehow.
Can be made more explicit, but this is exactly why the section opens with “acknowledge [existing stuff on topic]”.
Well, I don’t think you have to acknowledge existing stuff on this topic if you have a new and good argument.
Added: I think the phrasing I’d prefer is “You made an argument that has already been addressed extensively on LessWrong” rather than “You have talked about a topic without reading everything we’ve already written about on that topic”.
I do think there is an interesting question of “how much should people have read?” which is actually hard to answer.
There are people who don’t need to read as much in order to say sensible and valuable things, and some people that no amount of reading seems to save.
The half a million words is the Sequences. I don’t obviously want a rule that says you need to have read all of them in order to post/comment (nor do I think doing so is a guarantee), but also I do want to say that if you make mistakes the the Sequences would teach you not to make, that could be grounds for not having your content approved.
A lot of the AI newbie stuff I’m disinclined to approve is the kind that makes claims that are actually countered in the Sequences, e.g. orthogonality thesis, treating the AI too much like humans, various fallacies involving words.
How do you know you have a new and good argument if you don’t know the standards thing said on the topic
And relatedly, why should I or other readers on LW assume that you have a new and good argument without any indication that you know the arguments in general?
This is aimed at users making their very first post/comment. I think it is likely a good policy/heuristic for the mod team in judging your post that claims “AIs won’t be dangerous because X”, tells me early on that you’re not wasting my time because you’re already aware of all the standard arguments.
In a world where everyday a few dozen people who started thinking about AI two weeks ago show up on LessWrong and want to give their “why not just X?”, I think it’s reasonable to say “we want you to give some indication that you’re aware of the basic discussion this site generally assumes”.
I find it hilarious that you can say this, while simultaneously, the vast majority of this community is deeply upset they are being ignored by academia and companies, because they often have no formal degrees or peer reviewed publication, or other evidence of having considered the relevant science. Less wrong fails the standards of these fields and areas. You routinely re-invent concepts that already exist. Or propose solutions that would be immediately rejected as infeasible if you tried to get them into a journal.
Explaining a concept your community takes for granted to outsiders can help you refresh it, understand it better, and spot potential problems. A lot of things taken for granted here are rejected by outsiders because they are not objectively plausible.
And a significant number of newcomers, while lacking LW canon, will have other relevant knowledge. If you make the bar too high, you deter them.
All this is particularly troubling because your canon is spread all over the place, extremely lengthy, and individually usually incomplete or outdated, and filled in implicitly from prior forum interactions. Academic knowledge is more accessible that way.
Writing hastily in the interests of time, sorry if not maximally clear.
It’s very much a matter of how many newcomers there are relative to existing members. If the number of existing members is large compared to newcomers, it’s not so bad to take the time to explain things.
If the number of newcomers threatens to overwhelm the existing community, it’s just not practical to let everyone in. Among other factors, certain conversation is possible because you can assume that most people have certain background and even if they disagree, at least know the things you know.
The need for getting stricter is because of the current (and forecasted) increase in new user. This means we can’t afford to become 50% posts that ignore everything our community has already figured out.
LessWrong is an internet forum, but it’s in the direction of a university/academic publication, and such publications only work because editors don’t accept everything.
Source?
my guess is that that claim is slightly exaggerated, but I expect sources exist for an only mildly weaker claim. I certainly have been specifically mocked for my username in places that watch this site, for example.
This is an example of people mocking LW for something. Portia is making a claim about LW users’ internal emotional states; she is asserting that they care deeply about academic recognition and feel infuriated they’re not getting it. Does this describe you or the rest of the website, in your experience?
lens portia’s writing out of frustrated tone first and it makes more sense. they’re saying that recognition is something folks care about (yeah, I think so) and aren’t getting to an appropriate degree (also seems true). like I said in my other comment—tone makes it harder to extract intended meaning.
Well, I disagree. I have literally zero interest in currying the favor of academics, and think Portia is projecting a respect and yearning for status within universities onto the rest of us that mostly doesn’t exist. I would additionally prefer if this community were able to set standards for its members without having to worry about or debate whether or not asking people to read canon is a status grab.
sure. I do think it’s helpful to be academically valid sometimes though. you don’t need to care, but some do some of the time somewhat. maybe not as much as the literal wording used here. catch ya later, anyhow.
strong agree, single upvote: harsh tone, but reasonable message. I hope the tone doesn’t lead this point to be ignored, as I do think it’s important. but leading with mocking does seem like it’s probably why others have downvoted. downvote need not indicate refusal to consider, merely negative feedback to tone, but I worry about that, given the agree votes are also in the negative.
Thank you. And I apologise for the tone. I think the back of my mind was haunted by Shoggoth with a Smiley face giving me advice for my weekend plans, and that emotional turmoil came out the wrong way.
I am in the strange position of being on this forum, and in academia, and seeing both sides engage in the same barrier keeping behaviour, and call it out as elitist and misguided in the other but a necessary way to ensure quality and affirm your superior identity in your own group is jarring. I’ve found valuable and admirable practices and insights in both, else I would not be there.
Any group that bears a credential, or performs negative selection of some kind, will bear the traits you speak of. ’Tis the nature of most task-performing groups human society produces. Alas, one cannot escape it, even coming to a group that once claimed to eschew credentialism. Nonetheless, it is still worthwhile to engage with these groups intellectually.