The vitamin D post looks straightforwardly frontpage. I’m guessing that at the time, it wasn’t frontpaged simply because we didn’t have good infrastructure yet for making sure we evaluated each post.
It doesn’t define what it means with Useful, novel, and relevant. An older document said:
1.1. Usefulness, novelty, and fun. The frontpage of this site is for serious intellectual engagement with interesting ideas, with a focus on ideas that are important but challenging to evaluate. Topics that lack inherent importance are OK if the discussion quality is high enough, and particularly if the discussion is useful for other purposes, like building skills; but the best topics will usually be consequential and neglected ones.
The topic of which toys in the park are the best doesn’t look to me like on of inherent importance.
The discussion quality also doesn’t seem to me very high. It just asserts that the criteria for deciding what the best toy happens to be usuable in different ways. Alternative criteria just as which toy offers the activity with the highest fun or injury rates with the toy that you might use to decide which toy is the best one aren’t considered.
Neither the topic nor the way it’s discussed in this post seems to me related to why LessWrong exists.
I think the topic of “which toys have deep fun” is fairly tightly coupled in my mind with “how do human values even work? How do we make a future that is good?”
(Note that I don’t think this means this post should automatically be frontpaged, I do still consider it a weird edge case)
I think the other two posts you list are also plausibly frontpage, and I don’t currently have a strong opinion on whether it was a mistake to not frontpage them. (There is still some amount of ‘stuff falls through the cracks sometimes’)
I do think that you can have a general discussion about which toys produce deep fun that can illuminate aspects about how human values work that’s on-topic but I don’t think the depth in which this post looks at the question leads there.
My take is something similar to Dagon’s: I think I want nonzero posts like this in the LessWrong feed – the fact that it’s short and playful and just gets me thinking about stuff without requiring me to boot up a “deep thinking mode” is in fact a key part of why I like it.
I agree there is also a “what sort of toys produce deep fun” bigger blogpost that goes into more depth that should maybe exist some day. But meanwhile I actively do want to have blogposts with a range of depth, and for some to be more like “here’s one concrete example” than “here’s a bunch of examples and an overarching theory.”
I don’t currently have a principled stance of “exactly how often and when should posts like this be on frontpage”, like Dagon noted elsethread it’s sort of important that that be vague and non-gameable.
the fact that it’s short and playful and just gets me thinking about stuff without requiring me to boot up a “deep thinking mode” is in fact a key part of why I like it.
If the LessWrong frontpage isn’t about booting up “deep thinking mode” what is it’s purpose?
Ideally, I would expect that reading things that require “deep thinking mode” is why people go to the frontpage.
I’m not saying that’s not a key purpose, but I don’t think it can or should be the only purpose.
Note that the current LW frontpage post is on average much longer than the original sequences – those contained many instances of Eliezer spelling out one idea with one example very clearly and concisely. And I think this was good. I think this was both good pedagogically for readers, and good for Eliezer’s own writing/work ethic.
I think there is potentially some argument that posts like this should be shortform rather than top-level posts, but I currently lean against it. But if so, I’d want shortform better integrated than it currently is, such that reading shortform is a more natural thing to build LW habits around.
But I think you get much more intellectual progress if you enable small bite sized posts like this than if you don’t. I don’t think Jeff was at all likely to build up a theory of what makes toys fun and write an extensive post on them. But I do think other people are more likely now to take this example and have it mulling in the back of their head, and have it feed into more comprehensive ideas.
(One of) the points of frontpage is to give newcomers a sense of what to expect from LessWrong overall, that is representative of where the overall site is trying to go. This includes ideas at different stages of the pipeline. Again, this is not a post I’d want to have here all the time – I frontpage maybe 1 in 20 of Jeff’s personal-blog-style posts, and current there aren’t many other personal-blog-style posts that get written. All I’m arguing here is the number should probably be non-zero.
On the readership side – if every LessWrong post required booting up deep thinking mode, then people would only come to LessWrong when they felt able to Deep Think, which is actually pretty rare. A key point of LW in my mind is to leverage a lot of untapped intellectual capital via the power of “being fun and feeling low effort.” We’re not paying people to be here.
I think allowing discussion to go to much to being low effort was one of the ways LW1.0 failed over time. People were spending less energy on effortful posts and then more on effortless posts.
On the readership side – if every LessWrong post required booting up deep thinking mode, then people would only come to LessWrong when they felt able to Deep Think, which is actually pretty rare.
The fact that LW1.0 drew a readership with an average IQ of 140 (in the census) does suggest that it drew readers that have an ability to think deeply that’s quite rare. That’s no bug.
What are the technical frontpage norms? What kind of norms does this post fulfill that a post like https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/c5aycbSsSc38XWPEc/taking-vitamin-d3-with-k2-in-the-morning doesn’t?
The vitamin D post looks straightforwardly frontpage. I’m guessing that at the time, it wasn’t frontpaged simply because we didn’t have good infrastructure yet for making sure we evaluated each post.
I’m still surprised how this post qualifies. Is the current standard document https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/5conQhfa4rgb4SaWx/site-guide-personal-blogposts-vs-frontpage-posts ?
It doesn’t define what it means with Useful, novel, and relevant. An older document said:
The topic of which toys in the park are the best doesn’t look to me like on of inherent importance.
The discussion quality also doesn’t seem to me very high. It just asserts that the criteria for deciding what the best toy happens to be usuable in different ways. Alternative criteria just as which toy offers the activity with the highest fun or injury rates with the toy that you might use to decide which toy is the best one aren’t considered.
Neither the topic nor the way it’s discussed in this post seems to me related to why LessWrong exists.
Looking through the last months it seems that among posts with karma >10 those that aren’t frontpaged are mostly about COVID-19. Presumably that’s because they aren’t timeless. https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZpLTTKs9QQ9CZXfFz/isn-t-tesla-stock-highly-undervalued seems to me another post that isn’t timeless but is frontpaged.
In the same time I would see the following posts frontpage material:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/oQYaRMYRjsTzNQkzu/how-to-learn-from-a-stronger-rationalist-in-daily-life
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Dpt7MGDixG2hiFm4n/how-do-you-study-a-math-textbook
I think the topic of “which toys have deep fun” is fairly tightly coupled in my mind with “how do human values even work? How do we make a future that is good?”
(Note that I don’t think this means this post should automatically be frontpaged, I do still consider it a weird edge case)
I think the other two posts you list are also plausibly frontpage, and I don’t currently have a strong opinion on whether it was a mistake to not frontpage them. (There is still some amount of ‘stuff falls through the cracks sometimes’)
I do think that you can have a general discussion about which toys produce deep fun that can illuminate aspects about how human values work that’s on-topic but I don’t think the depth in which this post looks at the question leads there.
My take is something similar to Dagon’s: I think I want nonzero posts like this in the LessWrong feed – the fact that it’s short and playful and just gets me thinking about stuff without requiring me to boot up a “deep thinking mode” is in fact a key part of why I like it.
I agree there is also a “what sort of toys produce deep fun” bigger blogpost that goes into more depth that should maybe exist some day. But meanwhile I actively do want to have blogposts with a range of depth, and for some to be more like “here’s one concrete example” than “here’s a bunch of examples and an overarching theory.”
I don’t currently have a principled stance of “exactly how often and when should posts like this be on frontpage”, like Dagon noted elsethread it’s sort of important that that be vague and non-gameable.
If the LessWrong frontpage isn’t about booting up “deep thinking mode” what is it’s purpose?
Ideally, I would expect that reading things that require “deep thinking mode” is why people go to the frontpage.
I’m not saying that’s not a key purpose, but I don’t think it can or should be the only purpose.
Note that the current LW frontpage post is on average much longer than the original sequences – those contained many instances of Eliezer spelling out one idea with one example very clearly and concisely. And I think this was good. I think this was both good pedagogically for readers, and good for Eliezer’s own writing/work ethic.
I think there is potentially some argument that posts like this should be shortform rather than top-level posts, but I currently lean against it. But if so, I’d want shortform better integrated than it currently is, such that reading shortform is a more natural thing to build LW habits around.
But I think you get much more intellectual progress if you enable small bite sized posts like this than if you don’t. I don’t think Jeff was at all likely to build up a theory of what makes toys fun and write an extensive post on them. But I do think other people are more likely now to take this example and have it mulling in the back of their head, and have it feed into more comprehensive ideas.
(One of) the points of frontpage is to give newcomers a sense of what to expect from LessWrong overall, that is representative of where the overall site is trying to go. This includes ideas at different stages of the pipeline. Again, this is not a post I’d want to have here all the time – I frontpage maybe 1 in 20 of Jeff’s personal-blog-style posts, and current there aren’t many other personal-blog-style posts that get written. All I’m arguing here is the number should probably be non-zero.
On the readership side – if every LessWrong post required booting up deep thinking mode, then people would only come to LessWrong when they felt able to Deep Think, which is actually pretty rare. A key point of LW in my mind is to leverage a lot of untapped intellectual capital via the power of “being fun and feeling low effort.” We’re not paying people to be here.
I think allowing discussion to go to much to being low effort was one of the ways LW1.0 failed over time. People were spending less energy on effortful posts and then more on effortless posts.
The fact that LW1.0 drew a readership with an average IQ of 140 (in the census) does suggest that it drew readers that have an ability to think deeply that’s quite rare. That’s no bug.
You seem (to me) to be making an extremely strong claim that the number of posts like this should be zero (as opposed to like 1-3 per year).
I’m still pretty uncertain about whether this post should be frontpaged, but that just seems like an extremely strong claim to me.