We are trying to do both, in that we are attempting to be a bridge between LW and wider scientific communities. Where do you feel our tone might be excluding domain scientists?
I think the general sense is that this is written for a LW audience. If I’d point to specific wordings:
“Key bets”, “The Core Bet”
“build-in-the-open updates”
“friction that kills speed”
“This project could fail”
“Status-chasing bottleneck”
“counterfactually positive impact”
“credibly status-accruing”
I think how other organizations handle this sort of thing is that they may have one post on Lesswrong for this specific audience, and a second, less detailed post for a broader community on their website. E.g., compare Anthropic’s RSP update with Holden’s post on the topic.
Concretely, I think it seems like your post assumes some of the worldviews and assumptions of the lesswrong-ish alignment community, and so general academics may feel like the post is not addressed to them.
Thanks, this is specific and useful. I think it’s less that we’re attempting to target LW and more that it’s just how we tend to talk. We’ll work on keeping the word choice more conventional and professional.
We are trying to do both, in that we are attempting to be a bridge between LW and wider scientific communities. Where do you feel our tone might be excluding domain scientists?
I think the general sense is that this is written for a LW audience. If I’d point to specific wordings:
“Key bets”, “The Core Bet”
“build-in-the-open updates”
“friction that kills speed”
“This project could fail”
“Status-chasing bottleneck”
“counterfactually positive impact”
“credibly status-accruing”
I think how other organizations handle this sort of thing is that they may have one post on Lesswrong for this specific audience, and a second, less detailed post for a broader community on their website. E.g., compare Anthropic’s RSP update with Holden’s post on the topic.
Concretely, I think it seems like your post assumes some of the worldviews and assumptions of the lesswrong-ish alignment community, and so general academics may feel like the post is not addressed to them.
Thanks, this is specific and useful. I think it’s less that we’re attempting to target LW and more that it’s just how we tend to talk. We’ll work on keeping the word choice more conventional and professional.