Detach LessWrong from the SIAI by creating an additional platform to talk about related issues.
I think LessWrong is sufficiently seperated from SIAI—most LessWrong members are not involved at all with SIAI, and many SIAI members/advisors/whatchamacallits don’t post on LessWrong (I think).
I think of LessWrong more of as “a place for people who read the Sequences to discuss related topics”, whereas SIAI is much more focused on a specific goal. SIAI people may make anouncements on LessWrong because a lot of members are interested, but I don’t expect SIAI people to pay that much attention to LessWrong in general.
So in that light, these:
Ask or pay independent experts to peer-review.
Make the finances of the SIAI easily accessible.
Openly explain why and for what the SIAI currently needs more money.
… are for SIAI, and have little to do with LessWrong.
I think LessWrong is sufficiently seperated from SIAI—most LessWrong members are not involved at all with SIAI, and many SIAI members/advisors/whatchamacallits don’t post on LessWrong (I think).
It’s not detached yet—it’s still to a large degree about SIAI-related interests that are not related to the (excellent) tagline “a community blog devoted to the art of refining human rationality”.
There are plenty of front-page promoted posts that are essentially advertising for SIAI, reasons why you should donate all you can spare to SIAI or how-tos on ways for readers to make money to donate to SIAI. Which I can live with—it’s no more annoying than the banners on Wikipedia at the end of each year, and it takes money to keep the lights on—but it’s not obviously on-mission (taking the tagline at face value).
I think that one day LW should be more independent of SIAI, but it’s not a problem that it isn’t yet and it can happen at its own pace.
I think LessWrong is sufficiently seperated from SIAI...
Why I think this is not the case:
The Sequences have been written with the goal in mind of convincing people of the importance of taking risks from AI serious and therefore donate to the SIAI (Reference: An interview with Eliezer Yudkowsky).
You can find a logo with a link to the SIAI in the header and a logo and a link to LessWrong on the SIAI’s frontpage.
LessWrong is mentioned as an achievement of the SIAI (Quote: “Less Wrong is important to the Singularity Institute’s work towards a beneficial Singularity”).
A quote from the official SIAI homepage: “Less Wrong is [...] a key venue for SIAI recruitment”.
LessWrong is the mouthpiece of the SIAI and its main advertisement platform. I don’t think one can reasonably disagree about that.
I do disagree. LessWrong isn’t the mouthpiece of SIAI, that would be the SIAI blog. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect top-level posts on LessWrong to represent the SIAI’s views, and even less to expect that of discussion posts, comments and voting patterns.
There may be a fair amount of SIAI-oriented posts by Eliezer or others on LessWrong, but I don’t see that as using LessWrong as a platform, but rather “the SIAI talking to LessWrong people”.
LessWrong may be The SIAI’s most popular advertisement platform, but that’s because the quality of Eliezer’s writings and the community attract more audience than the SIAI website does.
Eliezer needs nerds for the SIAI; instead of going through the effort of hunting nerds in the wild, he created LessWrong in the hope of having a self-sustained place where nerds like to hang out and are already familiar with his ideas. But LessWrong isn’t supposed to represent the SIAI, apart from the fact that it was shaped with the features that make it a good hunting ground for the kind of nerds Eliezer needs. A lot of features required for having a functional internet community (moderation, karma, openness) have nothing to do with the SIAI’s goals themselves.
I’m rambling a bit, but I still think that LessWrong is the wrong place to come to complain about things you don’t like about SIAI. Information flow is mostly SIAI → LessWrong. And also the issues of “what the SIAI should do to reach it’s goals” is very different from “What features should LessWrong have to be a valuable community”.
I still think that LessWrong is the wrong place to come to complain about things you don’t like about SIAI.
I don’t necessarily agree but I will do you all a favor and from now on send any criticism directly to the SIAI, via e-Mail or otherwise. Except someone else starts a discussion about the SIAI here, in which case I might post a comment.
I think LessWrong is sufficiently seperated from SIAI—most LessWrong members are not involved at all with SIAI, and many SIAI members/advisors/whatchamacallits don’t post on LessWrong (I think).
I think of LessWrong more of as “a place for people who read the Sequences to discuss related topics”, whereas SIAI is much more focused on a specific goal. SIAI people may make anouncements on LessWrong because a lot of members are interested, but I don’t expect SIAI people to pay that much attention to LessWrong in general.
So in that light, these:
… are for SIAI, and have little to do with LessWrong.
It’s not detached yet—it’s still to a large degree about SIAI-related interests that are not related to the (excellent) tagline “a community blog devoted to the art of refining human rationality”.
There are plenty of front-page promoted posts that are essentially advertising for SIAI, reasons why you should donate all you can spare to SIAI or how-tos on ways for readers to make money to donate to SIAI. Which I can live with—it’s no more annoying than the banners on Wikipedia at the end of each year, and it takes money to keep the lights on—but it’s not obviously on-mission (taking the tagline at face value).
I think that one day LW should be more independent of SIAI, but it’s not a problem that it isn’t yet and it can happen at its own pace.
Why I think this is not the case:
The Sequences have been written with the goal in mind of convincing people of the importance of taking risks from AI serious and therefore donate to the SIAI (Reference: An interview with Eliezer Yudkowsky).
LessWrong is used to ask for donations.
You can find a logo with a link to the SIAI in the header and a logo and a link to LessWrong on the SIAI’s frontpage.
LessWrong is mentioned as an achievement of the SIAI (Quote: “Less Wrong is important to the Singularity Institute’s work towards a beneficial Singularity”).
A quote from the official SIAI homepage: “Less Wrong is [...] a key venue for SIAI recruitment”.
LessWrong is the mouthpiece of the SIAI and its main advertisement platform. I don’t think one can reasonably disagree about that.
I do disagree. LessWrong isn’t the mouthpiece of SIAI, that would be the SIAI blog. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect top-level posts on LessWrong to represent the SIAI’s views, and even less to expect that of discussion posts, comments and voting patterns.
There may be a fair amount of SIAI-oriented posts by Eliezer or others on LessWrong, but I don’t see that as using LessWrong as a platform, but rather “the SIAI talking to LessWrong people”.
LessWrong may be The SIAI’s most popular advertisement platform, but that’s because the quality of Eliezer’s writings and the community attract more audience than the SIAI website does.
Eliezer needs nerds for the SIAI; instead of going through the effort of hunting nerds in the wild, he created LessWrong in the hope of having a self-sustained place where nerds like to hang out and are already familiar with his ideas. But LessWrong isn’t supposed to represent the SIAI, apart from the fact that it was shaped with the features that make it a good hunting ground for the kind of nerds Eliezer needs. A lot of features required for having a functional internet community (moderation, karma, openness) have nothing to do with the SIAI’s goals themselves.
I’m rambling a bit, but I still think that LessWrong is the wrong place to come to complain about things you don’t like about SIAI. Information flow is mostly SIAI → LessWrong. And also the issues of “what the SIAI should do to reach it’s goals” is very different from “What features should LessWrong have to be a valuable community”.
I don’t necessarily agree but I will do you all a favor and from now on send any criticism directly to the SIAI, via e-Mail or otherwise. Except someone else starts a discussion about the SIAI here, in which case I might post a comment.
You’re correct.
Relevant LW post.