True, and it’s a good 80⁄20 of what we want. Is it worth improving upon? Maybe:
Their categories only focus on solving problems and not on improving above baseline.
Creating our own software and integrating it with the LW 2.0 website might provide a schelling point, causing many more rationalists to actually work with the data.
They don’t do a lot of analysis. There might be a huge improvement if we condition on people’s features and do the actual ML/bayesian statistics to predict what will work *for them*.
Many rationalist try the weirdest stuff and I don’t expect to find that data on a normie website.
I expect adaptive problem solving in general to be improved if you could run it through the cookbook before generating your own solutions.
This is an interesting idea but I think something like it already exists: http://curetogether.com/conditions
True, and it’s a good 80⁄20 of what we want. Is it worth improving upon? Maybe:
Their categories only focus on solving problems and not on improving above baseline.
Creating our own software and integrating it with the LW 2.0 website might provide a schelling point, causing many more rationalists to actually work with the data.
They don’t do a lot of analysis. There might be a huge improvement if we condition on people’s features and do the actual ML/bayesian statistics to predict what will work *for them*.
Many rationalist try the weirdest stuff and I don’t expect to find that data on a normie website.
I expect adaptive problem solving in general to be improved if you could run it through the cookbook before generating your own solutions.