I don’t know—I’m not sure if we want to end up with dozens and dozens of post re-explaining things like Newcomb’s problem. Decision Theory was already explained here by Eliezer, then by Anna Salamon … maybe in a year some other new poster is going to read up on decision theory and decide to post a sequence about it on Less Wrong.
On the other hand, your Decision Theory posts aren’t really low-quality by LW standards. They’re just covering ground that has already been covered before. I would much prefer posts that quickly gloss over the familiar stuff (linking to the wiki or old sequences as needed), and quickly get to the new stuff.
They’re just covering ground that has already been covered before. I would much prefer posts that quickly gloss over the familiar stuff (linking to the wiki or old sequences as needed), and quickly get to the new stuff.
I don’t know—I’m not sure if we want to end up with dozens and dozens of post re-explaining things like Newcomb’s problem. Decision Theory was already explained here by Eliezer, then by Anna Salamon … maybe in a year some other new poster is going to read up on decision theory and decide to post a sequence about it on Less Wrong.
On the other hand, your Decision Theory posts aren’t really low-quality by LW standards. They’re just covering ground that has already been covered before. I would much prefer posts that quickly gloss over the familiar stuff (linking to the wiki or old sequences as needed), and quickly get to the new stuff.
I would like to direct this comment to the attention of all the people who wondered why I was apologetic about posting elementary material.