a distinctive writing style that does, in extreme cases, seem to be satire compared to the academic norm
I don’t know what you’re referring to here, an example would be helpful.
I do agree that there is a slight ‘creepiness vibe’ with the way the Sequences are presented by default on the home page
I don’t know who you’re agreeing with or why showing some of the best writing on the site seems creepy to you.
In practical terms I’ve found the average quality of writings on LW to match the best subreddits but worse than the best private forums.
I’d be somewhat more interested in you comparing the top 1-5% of the best subreddits and of LW? The average doesn’t seem as interesting to me, because it falls off the frontpage much faster than the peak content.
Ideally I would link to concrete examples but I’m afraid it would come across as me calling out someone else, especially if they believe they put in their best effort in writing a serious essay, so I will have to leave it to your imagination.
The Sequences do contain some very good pieces of writing, but they also contain some that are not so, and perhaps it is an artifact of the time period and/or Eliezer’s personal idiosyncrasies, but I can’t honestly say I perceived all of it as entirely wholesome. For example, some of it comes across as more argumentative than necessary, some of it seems a bit too eager for recognition, and so on. Due to the nature of vibes, I’m not sure if I could provide a more convincing explanation.Then again I may just be an outlier.
The top 1% of writings on LW are definitely better than the top 1% of any subreddit I’ve seen. I think they are probably the largest collection of high quality writing by a pool of many dozens (hundreds?) I’ve seen anywhere online.
Ideally I would link to concrete examples but I’m afraid it would come across as me calling out someone else, especially if they believe they put in their best effort in writing a serious essay, so I will have to leave it to your imagination.
For the record, I think critiques can accurately describe someone’s writing critically without being an unreasonable aggression, and I think critiques are much better for concreteness. I think your post would be 2-5x as valuable for me if I had concrete posts in mind as what you were pointing to, when you discuss old posts that were better than new posts, or posts that use jargon more than academia to an excessive degree.
Perhaps, though I have yet to see any successful examples of such a comparison. And it may be a moral hazard regardless with deleterious second, and higher, order effects.
Hm, I think there are lots of examples. First to come to mind is a recent reply to Eliezer by Holden, of which I think a severe criticism was respectfully described like this:
Something like half of this post is blockquotes. I’ve often been surprised by the degree to which people (including people I respect a lot, such as Eliezer in this case) seem to mischaracterize specific pieces they critique , and I try to avoid this for myself by quoting extensively from a piece when critiquing it.
And lines like this:
“Most of Eliezer’s critique seems directed at assumptions the report explicitly does not make about how transformative AI will be developed, and more broadly, about the connection between its (the report’s) compute estimates and all-things-considered AI timelines.”
This appears to be mostly, if not entirely, concerned with the substantive content of a post, not the style or manner of writing. Style criticisms are a lot trickier and I’m not sure if it’s possible to avoid hurt feelings one way or another.
For example, some of it comes across as more argumentative than necessary, some of it seems a bit too eager for recognition, and so on. Due to the nature of vibes, I’m not sure if I could provide a more convincing explanation.Then again I may just be an outlier.
I remember having similar impressions when first encountering Eliezer’s writing. So if you are an outlier, you’re not the only one.
I think his writing is written in a way that makes it captivating, illustrative, and convincing sounding, which ironically makes me more suspicious of it than if it were very dry and logical.
Thanks for the write-up.
A few lines I didn’t quite get.
I don’t know what you’re referring to here, an example would be helpful.
I don’t know who you’re agreeing with or why showing some of the best writing on the site seems creepy to you.
I’d be somewhat more interested in you comparing the top 1-5% of the best subreddits and of LW? The average doesn’t seem as interesting to me, because it falls off the frontpage much faster than the peak content.
Ideally I would link to concrete examples but I’m afraid it would come across as me calling out someone else, especially if they believe they put in their best effort in writing a serious essay, so I will have to leave it to your imagination.
The Sequences do contain some very good pieces of writing, but they also contain some that are not so, and perhaps it is an artifact of the time period and/or Eliezer’s personal idiosyncrasies, but I can’t honestly say I perceived all of it as entirely wholesome. For example, some of it comes across as more argumentative than necessary, some of it seems a bit too eager for recognition, and so on. Due to the nature of vibes, I’m not sure if I could provide a more convincing explanation.Then again I may just be an outlier.
The top 1% of writings on LW are definitely better than the top 1% of any subreddit I’ve seen. I think they are probably the largest collection of high quality writing by a pool of many dozens (hundreds?) I’ve seen anywhere online.
For the record, I think critiques can accurately describe someone’s writing critically without being an unreasonable aggression, and I think critiques are much better for concreteness. I think your post would be 2-5x as valuable for me if I had concrete posts in mind as what you were pointing to, when you discuss old posts that were better than new posts, or posts that use jargon more than academia to an excessive degree.
Perhaps, though I have yet to see any successful examples of such a comparison. And it may be a moral hazard regardless with deleterious second, and higher, order effects.
Hm, I think there are lots of examples. First to come to mind is a recent reply to Eliezer by Holden, of which I think a severe criticism was respectfully described like this:
And lines like this:
This appears to be mostly, if not entirely, concerned with the substantive content of a post, not the style or manner of writing. Style criticisms are a lot trickier and I’m not sure if it’s possible to avoid hurt feelings one way or another.
Fair point.
I remember having similar impressions when first encountering Eliezer’s writing. So if you are an outlier, you’re not the only one.
I think his writing is written in a way that makes it captivating, illustrative, and convincing sounding, which ironically makes me more suspicious of it than if it were very dry and logical.
Thanks!