https://www.lesswrong.com/questions
There's support for it as a distinct type of post, which also creates a distinction between "answers" and "comments" as two separate types of reply.
Or at least... there used to be. I cannot, now that I go looking, figure out how one submits a question post.
The FAQ shows it as a separate option on the dropdown menu, which I no longer see there. Maybe the feature has been deprecated?
Oh, interesting, that is exactly what I was looking for, and I think I would be very interested in them. But yes, seems most recent activity is from 4 years ago.
It’s was possible quite recently:
https://www.greaterwrong.com/index?view=questions
But I seems that now it has been completely turned off, I don’t see the “New Question” button here any more: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tpZciMYCXN49FYWnS/nicholaskross-s-shortform?commentId=e3svSTYHjDbTJ8Mzs
Like a lot of "what's allowed on LW" questions, the answer is a bit subtle. Questions are supported as a post type, and are very much appreciated when they elicit information that's not otherwise easily available. But some topics/questions will get more engagement than others, and a lot depends on whether you're asking something fairly straightforward/basic, which 20 minutes with a Claude Fable or ChatGPT Sol model could have fully answered.
Best advice is to lurk for a bit, search for old questions to see what gets the kind of responses you're looking for, then try maybe a shortform post with the puzzle or question you're exploring. Don't get discouraged if it doesn't get much, try a few times over a couple of weeks to see if anything resonates (and especially if anything gets negative attention, then make a post or question. Go slow, especially if you're seeing downvotes. most questions take a few days or a week for the active members to see them and decide whether or not to engage.
Edit: oh, wait! you've been around for awhile, and already made some posts. can you ask more specifically about what information you're seeking?
Edit: oh, wait! you've been around for awhile, and already made some posts. can you ask more specifically about what information you're seeking?
I don't feel like I've really been around, or made a proper meaty, non-meta post (although I'm drafting one right now!). My original question was something like..
The answer to the first question is “yes! there was a questions feature (now deprecated).”
A good answer to the second question, I’m surmising, is something like what you say:
Notice question arise.
Spend up to 20 minutes with Fable/Sol.
Intellectually digest it, noticing what feels answered and what doesn't, and how you’d explain it to someone else.
Put THAT in a post maybe!
This is like StackOverflow’s post-Google, pre-LLM ask of question askers to have done their homework by Googling their questions with a few obvious keywords.
Like a lot of "what's allowed on LW" questions, the answer is a bit subtle.
Yeah, it's interesting, “is X allowed?” is a question that newbies to a community often ask, and the answer is always sorta “uh, sorta? no one is the hall monitor here. but you may wanna reply a bunch first and pick up on what the vibe is and you will have a more instinctive understanding that makes the question as posed in its abstraction seem wrong to you too.”
Sometimes I want to post things like:
[here’s my initial stab at it]
[but i have no idea if this is right or wrong]
[i'm sure people on LW would love to tell me where i can find the answer or how they think about it]
If Alice knows much more physics than me, learning that Alice assigns 90% to X is obviously evidence for X.
But blindly averaging toward expert beliefs seems to double-count correlated evidence.
It also conflates “probability emanating from a coherently-integrated world-model I can defend the gears-level of” with “probability if I was guessing on a prediction market.”
What is a cleaner way to think about epistemic deference?
People keep telling me “RL is very informationally inefficient.” It only receives a single bit of information (success/fail) over an entire rollout (tens of thousands of tokens!). Meanwhile, SFT gets a bit or more of information on every token.
But RL can make my warm-started model learn to do what I want in like a dozen steps while I can't get SFT to do like anything useful in a dozen steps.
And RL and SFT on LLMs seem to reduce to the same cross-entropy loss anyway, just with a different coefficient. What is going on??
You know... like StackOverflow....
But I notice Q&A doesn’t seem to be the vibe here, nor quite fit with this particular web of knowledge.
So what can one do instead?
Maybe instead of ...
... one could make a ...
Edit: I’m glad I made this post, because the comments have fully answered my original question, and given me a concrete way to direct this urge in the future:
Yes! There was a questions feature as recently as July of this year (deprecated for UI complexity).”
Notice question arise.
Spend 5–20 minutes with Fable/Sol.
Intellectually digest it, noticing what feels answered and what doesn't, and how you’d explain it to someone else.
Put THAT in a post maybe!
Simple bar.
“Are questions allowed?” was a somewhat mistaken framing, but was useful anyway.