I think my issue with the LW wiki is that it relies too much on Lesswrong? It seems like the expectation is you click on a tag, which then contains / is assigned to a number of LW posts, and then you read through the posts. This is not like how other wikis / encyclopedias work!

My gold standard for a technical wiki (other than wikipedia) is the chessprogramming wiki https://www.chessprogramming.org/Main_Page

I agree with this

i've found that the lw wiki doesn't work as a wikipedia-like resource, at least for me

How useful is a wiki for alignment? There doesn't seem to be one now.

norm \in \mathbf{R}, doesn't matter

I've found the part about applying random search to be the among the best takeaways I had from PAIR! Novelty for the sake of Novelty is not a terrible idea. Specifically, I've found that even if you don't like the things you do, it makes it much easier to then make progress towards the larger goal