Thank you. These summaries are extremely useful. I suspect they will make the connections between Less Wrong and the EA network stronger.
These summaries personally cause me to read more of these articles/posts/threads both by exposing me to some I probably missed, but also through uncertainty reduction.
When determining whether an article is worth digging into I always have uncertainty about whether it's worth it. Sometimes this uncertainty is sufficiently high for a whole bunch of articles, and I don't end up reading any. The summaries you're constructing reduce that uncertainty by giving me more information. On the whole this means I will likely read more of them.
And even if I don't read more of them in their entirety, the summaries provide some informational content in themselves that I wouldn't have gotten otherwise.
Are there particular knowledge gaps you feel the less wrong community has with respect to the types of progress you've reviewed? Any gaps that are perhaps
deeper here than in other similarly thoughtful communities?
Thank you. These summaries are extremely useful. I suspect they will make the connections between Less Wrong and the EA network stronger.
These summaries personally cause me to read more of these articles/posts/threads both by exposing me to some I probably missed, but also through uncertainty reduction.
When determining whether an article is worth digging into I always have uncertainty about whether it's worth it. Sometimes this uncertainty is sufficiently high for a whole bunch of articles, and I don't end up reading any. The summaries you're constructing reduce that uncertainty by giving me more information. On the whole this means I will likely read more of them.
And even if I don't read more of them in their entirety, the summaries provide some informational content in themselves that I wouldn't have gotten otherwise.
Thanks!