Here’s a comment I wrote on the EA Forum version of this post, which I’m copying here as I’d be interested on people’s thoughts on the equivalent questions in the context of LessWrong:
Meta: Does this sort of post seem useful? Should there be more posts like this?
Eventually, we’d like it to be the case that almost all well-written EA content exists on the Forum somewhere.
[...]
I meant “quite EA-relevant and well-written”. I don’t especially care whether the content is written by community members, though I suppose that’s slightly preferable (as community members are much more likely to respond to comments on their work).
[...]
A single crosspost with a bit of context from the author—e.g. a few sentences each of summary/highlights, commentary, and action items/takeaways—seems better to me than three or four crossposts with no context at all. In my view, the best Forum content tends to give busy people a quick way to decide whether to read further.
And I read a lot of stuff that I think it could be useful for at least some other EAs to read, and that isn’t (link)posted to the Forum. So Aaron’s comments, combined with my own thinking and some comments from other people, make me think it’d be good for me to make linkposts for lots of that stuff if there was a way to do it that took up very little of my time.
Unfortunately, writing proper book reviews, or even just notes that are geared for public consumption, for all of those things I read would probably take a while.
But, starting about a month ago, I now make Anki cards for myself anyway during most of the reading I do. So maybe I should just make posts sort-of like this one for most particularly interesting things I read? And maybe other people could start doing that too?
A big uncertainty I have is how often the cards I make myself would be able to transmit useful ideas even to people who (a) aren’t me and (b) didn’t read the thing I read, and how often they’d do that with an efficiency comparable to people just finding and reading useful sources themselves directly. Another, related uncertainty is whether there’d be any demand for posts like this.
So I’d be interested in people’s thoughts on the above.
Here’s a comment I wrote on the EA Forum version of this post, which I’m copying here as I’d be interested on people’s thoughts on the equivalent questions in the context of LessWrong:
Meta: Does this sort of post seem useful? Should there be more posts like this?
I previously asked Should pretty much all content that’s EA-relevant and/or created by EAs be (link)posted to the Forum? I found Aaron Gertler’s response interesting and useful. Among other things, he said:
And I read a lot of stuff that I think it could be useful for at least some other EAs to read, and that isn’t (link)posted to the Forum. So Aaron’s comments, combined with my own thinking and some comments from other people, make me think it’d be good for me to make linkposts for lots of that stuff if there was a way to do it that took up very little of my time.
Unfortunately, writing proper book reviews, or even just notes that are geared for public consumption, for all of those things I read would probably take a while.
But, starting about a month ago, I now make Anki cards for myself anyway during most of the reading I do. So maybe I should just make posts sort-of like this one for most particularly interesting things I read? And maybe other people could start doing that too?
A big uncertainty I have is how often the cards I make myself would be able to transmit useful ideas even to people who (a) aren’t me and (b) didn’t read the thing I read, and how often they’d do that with an efficiency comparable to people just finding and reading useful sources themselves directly. Another, related uncertainty is whether there’d be any demand for posts like this.
So I’d be interested in people’s thoughts on the above.