A major problem must be the “who gets the credit thing”, or?
I think the credit goes to the project, and the project lists its contributors. It seems like this is done mostly (or completely) for free, like open source software, which necessitates some other source of funding (like what happens with open source software). People in the project are fairly good at figuring out how various people helped (as is the case in open source), but the further you are from the details the blurrier it gets, and most people probably overestimate their contribution by a significant amount.
If what I am sketching concerning what you term “super-scientists and journyemen” could “evolve organically” from blog/public fora systems I’d be happy.
I think the credit goes to the project, and the project lists its contributors. It seems like this is done mostly (or completely) for free, like open source software, which necessitates some other source of funding (like what happens with open source software). People in the project are fairly good at figuring out how various people helped (as is the case in open source), but the further you are from the details the blurrier it gets, and most people probably overestimate their contribution by a significant amount.
Well, one recent example of this here might be RobbBB’s Building Phenomenological Bridges, specifically this comment.
I see...but are they publishing lots of stuff, solving lots of problem, etc?
Thanks for the links. From the second:
“The aim is to write up open problems in Friendly AI using as little Eliezer-time as possible. It seems to be working so far.”
Well that seems to be exactly what I am talking about. People here don’t seem to like it, though, which surprises me a bit.