The LessWrong 2022 Review: Review Phase
17habryka
2MondSemmel
9Raemon
2MondSemmel
2Raemon
6MondSemmel
4Raemon
New Comment
First round of review prizes for this year:
$200:
- @Buck for his self-review on the Causal Scrubbing post
- @ambigram for their review of Meadow Theory
- @LoganStrohl for their self-review of the Naturalism sequence
- @porby for their self-review of "Why I think strong general AI is coming soon"
$100:
- @Lee Sharkey for their self-review of the sparse auto-encoder post
- @Writer for their review of "Inner and outer alignment decompose one hard problem into two extremely hard problems"
- @Neel Nanda for their review of "Some Lessons Learned from Studying Indirect Object Identification in GPT-2 small"
- @janus for their self-review of the Simulators post
$50:
- @Davidmanheim for their review of "It's Probably not Lithium"
- @Vika for their self-review of "DeepMind alignment team opinions on AGI ruin arguments"
- @TurnTrout for their review of "Simualators"
- @Jan_Kulveit for their review of "Human values & biases are inaccessible to the genome"
- @Alex_Altair for their review of the Naturalism sequence
- @Neel Nanda for their self-review of "A Longlist of Theories of Impact for Interpretability"
- @Screwtape for their review of "Sazen"
- @eukaryote for their self-review of "Fiber arts, mysterious dodecahedrons, and waiting on “Eureka!”"
- @L Rudolf L for their self-review of "Review: Amusing Ourselves to Death"
- @Vika for their self-review of "Refining the Sharp Left Turn threat model, part 1: claims and mechanisms"
- @[DEACTIVATED] Duncan Sabien for their review of "Here's the exit."
For clarity, are the review & post results going to be separated into AI and non-AI stuff again, like they IIRC were in some previous year? I'd like to review some non-AI posts, but wouldn't bother doing so if all the top spots are going to be won by AI posts by default.
I'm not sure this question is that meaningful – we carve up the results in different ways for different purposes. In previous years we've put the top 50 things into books. We may not do exactly that again, but I think taking stock of the top 50 posts is still a worthwhile thing to do. Epistemic Legibility clocks in at #8 followed by non-AI posts. I think the non-AI content from the year was still doing something meaningful I want people to think about and process.
(Or, to put another way: if it turned out that not dividing up the categories was making people feel unmotivated to do non-AI posts, I'd probably go ahead and break them up into categories, because it does seem important to me)
1we carve up the results in different ways for different purposes.
I meant for stuff like prizes etc.
Overall my attitude is like, if the top 7 posts are all AI posts, that's not because they're necessarily better than the best non-AI posts, but rather because AI has been The Topic since 2022, plus the readership has dramatically shifted towards AI content. At which point we might as well declare LW to be a full-time AI site and consider all the rest to be mere hobbyist content =(. Such a ranking outcome would disincentivize authors from writing about the latter. Better to split the ranking into two top-25s or something.
Also, if the rankings are not split up, then if one only visits LW for AI or non-AI content, that gives an annoying strategic incentive to review-downvote all the other content. That doesn't occur if the rankings are separate.
Ah, gotcha. Yeah this does update me that we should split out the prizes in some way along the lines you're suggesting here. (I'm not involved with final decisions on the Review this year since I'm focused on some other projects, but this does seem like an issue)
