Hello! I work at Lightcone and like LessWrong :-). I have made some confidentiality agreements I can't leak much metadata about (like who they are with). I have made no non-disparagement agreements.
Interesting! Two yet more interesting versions of the test:
Moderation note: RFEs with interesting writeups have been a bit hard to frontpage recently. Normally, an announcement of a funding round is on the "personal" side, but I do think the content of this post, other than the announcement, is frontpage-worthy. For example, it would be interesting for people to see in recommendations in a few months time.
With the recent OpenPhil RFE, we asked them to split out the timeless content, which we then frontpaged. I would be happier if this post did that, but for now I'll frontpage it. I might change my mind and remove it from recommendations if I see it showing up and it feeling strange.
(Another thing that would help me feel comfortable frontpaging it would be a title change, where the new funding round was mentioned parenthetically).
This popped up in my Recommended feed, and it piqued my interest: I think it relates to a design skill I've picked up at Lightcone. When staging a physical space, or creating a website, I often want to stop iterating quite early, when the core idea is realised. "It would be a lot of work to get all the minor details here, but how much does stuff feeling a bit jank really matter?"
I think jank matters surprisingly much! When creating something, it's easy to think "wow, that's a cool idea. I've got a proof of concept sorted". But users, even if they think similar thoughts, either experience delight and ease, or they don't.
In design, it's kind of easy to "turn off your eyes" for a bunch of problems, and stop being able to notice them as things to improve. Which seems a bit different from mortgages and driving.
I had terrible luck with symbolic regression, for what its worth.
Two options I came up with:
Yes, I expect they will mostly be negative EV. I'm interested in those
Yeah, I'm looking for how one would roll one's own donor lottery out of non-philanthropic funds
Meta: I'm confused and a little sad about the relative upvotes of Habryka's comment (35) and Sam's comment (28). I think it's trending better, but what does it even mean to have a highly upvoted complaint comment based on a misunderstanding, especially one more highly upvoted than the correction?
Maybe people think Habryka's comment is a good critique even given the correction, even though I don't think Habryka does?
I've fixed the spoiler tags
My writing is often hard to follow. I think this is partly because I tend to write like I talk, but I can't use my non-verbals to help me out, and I don't get live feedback from the listener.