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.
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.