The top level posts are generally well below the quality of early material, including the sequences, in my estimation.
‘Main’ posts are rarely even vaguely interesting to me anymore.
‘Top Contributors’ karma values seem very low compared to what I remember them being ~9-12 months ago.
‘Discussion’ posts are littered with Meetup reminders.
About all I look at on LW anymore is the Open Discussion Thread, Rationality Quotes and the link to Slate Star Codex. I noticed CFAR and MIRI’s websites gave me the impression they were getting more traction and perhaps making some money.
I think it’s a little early to predict the end, but there’s less I’m interested in here, and I’m having trouble thinking of things to write about, though I can still find worthwhile links for open threads.
Is LW being hit by some sort of social problem, or have we simply run out of things to say?
I’d add “Metacontrarianism is on the rise” to your list. Many of the top posts now are contrary to at least the spirit of the sequences, if not the letter, or so it feels to me.
It seems to be a common sentiment, actually. I mentioned this a few times on #lesswrong and the regulars there appear to agree. Whether this is a some sort of confirmation bias, I am not sure. Fortunately, there is a way to measure it:
Maybe it’s because the important things have started, and moved to real life, outside of the LW website. There are people writing and publishing papers on Friendly AI, there are people researching and teaching rationality exercises; there are meetups in many countries. -- Although, if this is true, I would expect more reports here about what happens in the real life. (Remember the fundamental rule of bureaucracy: If it ain’t documented, it didn’t happen.)
Anyway, this is only a guess; it would be interesting to really know what’s happening...
The Sequences are and always were the finger that points at the objective, not the objective unto itself. The project of LW is “refining the art of human rationality.” But we don’t have the defininition of human rationality written on stone tablets, needing only diligence in application to obtain good results. The project of LW is thus a dynamic process of discovery, experimentation, incorporating new data, sometimes backtracking when we update on evidence that isn’t as solid was we had thought.
You correctly observe that the style of participation has changed over time. This is probably mostly the result of certain specific high volume contributors moving on to other things. It could also be the result of an aggregated shift in understanding as to what kinds of results can actually be produced by discussing rationality in a vacuum, which may perhaps be why these contributors have moved on. Or maybe they just said all they felt they needed to say, I don’t know. I have a 101.1 F fever right now.
It’s mostly that Eliezer has taken to disseminating his current work via open Facebook discussions. I can see how that choice makes sense, from his position, but it’s still sad for the identity-paranoid and the nostalgic remnants still roaming these forgotten halls. Did I have a purpose once? It’s been so long.
And perhaps harder to grow, at least through the usual means—the Facebook discussions wouldn’t show up on Google searches (or at least not highly ranked, I think), and it’s a less convenient format to link someone to for an explanation of a concept.
I remember people saying things like “Less Wrong is dying” for a long time, from 2010 at least. Which doesn’t invalidate the claim that LW’s much more quiet than it used to be, of course, but it does challenge the claim that this would be a recent development.
I personally believe it’s basically dead—at least for me. The sequences are great… But I wouldn’t recommend LW to anyone at this point in terms of it’s recent content, and that is a big change for me.
I’m not sure total participants is a good metric to use in making that determination. It depends on people’s level of participation and engagment, I think.
There do seem to be more meetups globally, but I’d say the SF Bay Area meetup scene—where MIRI is based and many prominent contributors live or have lived—is well off its peaks. This is perhaps an unreasonable time to be saying so, since the South Bay and East Bay meetups have just gone through major shakeups and haven’t yet stabilized; but even ignoring that we’re well down from two or three years ago in terms of engagement with high-karma users, in terms of number of local meetup groups, and probably in terms of people as well.
Is Less Wrong dying?
Some observations...
The top level posts are generally well below the quality of early material, including the sequences, in my estimation.
‘Main’ posts are rarely even vaguely interesting to me anymore.
‘Top Contributors’ karma values seem very low compared to what I remember them being ~9-12 months ago.
‘Discussion’ posts are littered with Meetup reminders.
About all I look at on LW anymore is the Open Discussion Thread, Rationality Quotes and the link to Slate Star Codex. I noticed CFAR and MIRI’s websites gave me the impression they were getting more traction and perhaps making some money.
Has LW run it’s course?
I think it’s a little early to predict the end, but there’s less I’m interested in here, and I’m having trouble thinking of things to write about, though I can still find worthwhile links for open threads.
Is LW being hit by some sort of social problem, or have we simply run out of things to say?
I’d add “Metacontrarianism is on the rise” to your list. Many of the top posts now are contrary to at least the spirit of the sequences, if not the letter, or so it feels to me.
It seems to be a common sentiment, actually. I mentioned this a few times on #lesswrong and the regulars there appear to agree. Whether this is a some sort of confirmation bias, I am not sure. Fortunately, there is a way to measure it:
Look at the recent Main entries: http://lesswrong.com/recentposts/
Then look at the entries from about 1 year ago: http://lesswrong.com/recentposts/?count=250&after=t3_gnv
Count interesting articles from each period and compare the numbers.
Maybe it’s because the important things have started, and moved to real life, outside of the LW website. There are people writing and publishing papers on Friendly AI, there are people researching and teaching rationality exercises; there are meetups in many countries. -- Although, if this is true, I would expect more reports here about what happens in the real life. (Remember the fundamental rule of bureaucracy: If it ain’t documented, it didn’t happen.)
Anyway, this is only a guess; it would be interesting to really know what’s happening...
I would say LW is evolving.
The Sequences are and always were the finger that points at the objective, not the objective unto itself. The project of LW is “refining the art of human rationality.” But we don’t have the defininition of human rationality written on stone tablets, needing only diligence in application to obtain good results. The project of LW is thus a dynamic process of discovery, experimentation, incorporating new data, sometimes backtracking when we update on evidence that isn’t as solid was we had thought.
You correctly observe that the style of participation has changed over time. This is probably mostly the result of certain specific high volume contributors moving on to other things. It could also be the result of an aggregated shift in understanding as to what kinds of results can actually be produced by discussing rationality in a vacuum, which may perhaps be why these contributors have moved on. Or maybe they just said all they felt they needed to say, I don’t know. I have a 101.1 F fever right now.
I blame Facebook. Many of the discussions that are had there were of the type that used to invigorate these here boards.
Hm. I think you have a much higher level of sophistication in your FB friend group. I get a lot of Tea Party quotes and pictures of peoples’ dinner.
It’s mostly that Eliezer has taken to disseminating his current work via open Facebook discussions. I can see how that choice makes sense, from his position, but it’s still sad for the identity-paranoid and the nostalgic remnants still roaming these forgotten halls. Did I have a purpose once? It’s been so long.
Also, it’s much harder (impossible?) to find older discussions on FB.
And perhaps harder to grow, at least through the usual means—the Facebook discussions wouldn’t show up on Google searches (or at least not highly ranked, I think), and it’s a less convenient format to link someone to for an explanation of a concept.
It turns out that while there may be no good way to use Facebook to find old discussions on Facebook, I used google and found an old Facebook post.
I remember people saying things like “Less Wrong is dying” for a long time, from 2010 at least. Which doesn’t invalidate the claim that LW’s much more quiet than it used to be, of course, but it does challenge the claim that this would be a recent development.
I personally believe it’s basically dead—at least for me. The sequences are great… But I wouldn’t recommend LW to anyone at this point in terms of it’s recent content, and that is a big change for me.
It’s been a good run.
The LW census get’s every year more participants. If LW would be dying I would expect the opposite.
I’m not sure total participants is a good metric to use in making that determination. It depends on people’s level of participation and engagment, I think.
When it comes to engagement we do have a bunch of in person meetups that we didn’t have a few years ago.
There do seem to be more meetups globally, but I’d say the SF Bay Area meetup scene—where MIRI is based and many prominent contributors live or have lived—is well off its peaks. This is perhaps an unreasonable time to be saying so, since the South Bay and East Bay meetups have just gone through major shakeups and haven’t yet stabilized; but even ignoring that we’re well down from two or three years ago in terms of engagement with high-karma users, in terms of number of local meetup groups, and probably in terms of people as well.