At least 3 people substantially rewrote their posts in the 2018 review, and my hope is that over time it becomes pretty common for there to be substantial rewriting. (albeit, two of those people were LessWrong team members)
But for what it’s worth, here’s the diff between the original version of my own post and the current version I wrote as a result of the review.
One of the pernicious issues with word-dillution is that often when people try to use a word to mean things, they’re… kinda meaning those things “aspirationally.” Where, yes part of my original goal with the Review absolutely included Research Debt. But indeed there’s a decent chance it won’t succeed at that goal. (But, I do intend to put in a fair amount of optimization pressure towards making it succeed)
At least 3 people substantially rewrote their posts in the 2018 review, and my hope is that over time it becomes pretty common for there to be substantial rewriting. (albeit, two of those people were LessWrong team members)
But for what it’s worth, here’s the diff between the original version of my own post and the current version I wrote as a result of the review.
Thanks! That does make me feel a bit better about the annual reviews.
One of the pernicious issues with word-dillution is that often when people try to use a word to mean things, they’re… kinda meaning those things “aspirationally.” Where, yes part of my original goal with the Review absolutely included Research Debt. But indeed there’s a decent chance it won’t succeed at that goal. (But, I do intend to put in a fair amount of optimization pressure towards making it succeed)