LessWrong team member / moderator. I've been a LessWrong organizer since 2011, with roughly equal focus on the cultural, practical and intellectual aspects of the community. My first project was creating the Secular Solstice and helping groups across the world run their own version of it. More recently I've been interested in improving my own epistemic standards and helping others to do so as well.
…the status quo is that we’re hiding information on one page. I’m proposing no longer do that, which sounds like what you want?
A thing unclear to me: is it worth hiding the authors from the Voting page?
On the first LessWrong Review, we deliberately hid authors and randomized the order of the voting results. A few year later, we've mostly shifted towards "help people efficiently sort through the information" rather than "making sure the presentation is random/fair." It's not like people don't know who the posts are by once they start reading them.
Curious what people think.
Mod note: I frontpaged this, but it was sort of an edge case. (pitches for "here's my org and what it's about!" are generally not frontpage, but I did feel like I learned generically useful things about philanthropy reading it and expect to still value reading it in 5 years, whatever happens to this particular org.
Ah whoops. That was a bug for Required Frontpage. I have fixed that, and, put tooltips over both of them now.
ah, renamed that to Nuts and Bolts.
This post helped nudge me toward Feedbackloop Rationality, but the stated solution feels kinda cheating – it wouldn't have occurred to me that doing a complete run-to-the-end-of-the-ramp was allowed (it seems like the rules explicitly imply they can't?).
I haven't actually done this exercise, nor used it in my workshops. I think it's probably a mistake that I haven't actually tried it at all. As I sit and think about it now, it doesn't seem that hard to patch the exercise so it doesn't feel like cheating, and a fixed version seems worth trying at Cognitive Bootcamp.
(I once asked John if he thought the exercise was possible without doing a complete "roll the ball to the end of the ramp", and he said "I dunno that does seem way harder.")
It seems like the current implementation of the exercise requires you to figure out you can do a single complete run, and then taking advantage of that. If I were try and fix the instructions, I'd want to make that feel "allowed" without "directly drawing their attention to it.
Some options:
I would generally either be clear cut about the rules, or clear cut at the meta-level about how to ask what counts as cheating (and be clear internally about what counts).
Oliver specifically wanted me to include the word "naive" because obviously there are sensible things people could mean by this but they phrase things overly strongly and the Lightcone Team's Autism is Powerful.
Yes I think your equation looks right.
Quick note: there's a bug I'm sorting out for some new LessWrong Review features for this year, hopefully will be fixed soon and we'll have the proper launch post that explains new changes.
I think probably we don't have that great a reason not to roll this out to more users, it's mostly a matter of managing UI complexity
Things I am interested in: