This post substantially updated my thinking about personal responsibility. While I totally disagree with the one-side framing of the post, the framing of it made me see that the “personal responsibility” vs. “incentives” thing wasn’t really about beliefs at all, but was in fact about the framing.
I think it articulates the “personal responsibility” frame particularly well, and helps see how choosing “individuals” as the level of abstraction naturally leads to a personal responsibility framing.
Um, this is a linkpost. Can you nominate a linkpost to something by a non-Less Wrong-affiliated author? Certainly the comment thread is worth pointing to as evidence of “things we learned in 2019”, but I don’t think the post should be eligible for the voting round?
If this post was very helpful for lots of LWers, that’s valuable info to know (e.g. if it scored highly in the voting round).
I like the post quite a bit. Also, looking at the author’s blog, they seem pretty cool e.g. they write fiction about GPT-3 :)
If it scores well in the review, I would be open to reaching out to the author and asking if they wanted to be fully crossposted and published in our annual essay collection.
I think it could be somewhat confusing if it were included in the book, as though it were an opinion of a LessWronger, even though it wasn’t written by a LessWrong user.
I was considering just nominating the comment section, as I see that Ray has done.
We’re still obviously figuring it all out, and I want to take it on a case-by-case basis. But I tentatively lean ‘yes’.
I was going to nominate this post for similar reasons, and then realized it’s almost entirely a third-party linkpost. It feels like an important part of my worldview but I wasn’t sure how to think about it in the context of the review.
I suppose maybe it’s good to have an Official Overton Window Fight about the post, without necessarily having that fight output an essay in the Best Of 2019 Book?
Yeah, I think that if in part the review is “What should be LW common knowledge” we can vote for that outside of *and should therefore be included in a book.”
This post substantially updated my thinking about personal responsibility. While I totally disagree with the one-side framing of the post, the framing of it made me see that the “personal responsibility” vs. “incentives” thing wasn’t really about beliefs at all, but was in fact about the framing.
I think it articulates the “personal responsibility” frame particularly well, and helps see how choosing “individuals” as the level of abstraction naturally leads to a personal responsibility framing.
Um, this is a linkpost. Can you nominate a linkpost to something by a non-Less Wrong-affiliated author? Certainly the comment thread is worth pointing to as evidence of “things we learned in 2019”, but I don’t think the post should be eligible for the voting round?
I’m not sure.
My current guess is:
If this post was very helpful for lots of LWers, that’s valuable info to know (e.g. if it scored highly in the voting round).
I like the post quite a bit. Also, looking at the author’s blog, they seem pretty cool e.g. they write fiction about GPT-3 :)
If it scores well in the review, I would be open to reaching out to the author and asking if they wanted to be fully crossposted and published in our annual essay collection.
I think it could be somewhat confusing if it were included in the book, as though it were an opinion of a LessWronger, even though it wasn’t written by a LessWrong user.
I was considering just nominating the comment section, as I see that Ray has done.
We’re still obviously figuring it all out, and I want to take it on a case-by-case basis. But I tentatively lean ‘yes’.
I was going to nominate this post for similar reasons, and then realized it’s almost entirely a third-party linkpost. It feels like an important part of my worldview but I wasn’t sure how to think about it in the context of the review.
I suppose maybe it’s good to have an Official Overton Window Fight about the post, without necessarily having that fight output an essay in the Best Of 2019 Book?
Yeah, I think that if in part the review is “What should be LW common knowledge” we can vote for that outside of *and should therefore be included in a book.”
Note that a lot more people will buy the book set than will look at the vote page. In some ways the book is the common-knowledge building mechanism.
Hmm, I guess I was imagining something like a “New LW sequences” featured prominently on the front page or something.