I’m considering continuing this sequence on an external blog. There’s been some positive responses to these posts but there are also a lot of people who plainly consider that the quality of the posts aren’t up to scratch. Moving them to an external site would let people follow them if they wanted to but would stop me from bombarding LW with another five or six posts.
I think this warrants being on Less Wrong. One of Eliezer’s best pieces was his basic explanation of Bayes Theorem, and there are plenty of people who’re confused about Decision Theory. This post got 111 comments, and it’s hard to see your doing worse than the recent SIAI-flamewar.
I think that you should finish this sequence on lesswrong. It is less technical and easier to understand than other posts on Decision Theory, and would therefore be valuable for newcomers.
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’m considering continuing this sequence on an external blog. There’s been some positive responses to these posts but there are also a lot of people who plainly consider that the quality of the posts aren’t up to scratch. Moving them to an external site would let people follow them if they wanted to but would stop me from bombarding LW with another five or six posts.
Opinions?
I think this warrants being on Less Wrong. One of Eliezer’s best pieces was his basic explanation of Bayes Theorem, and there are plenty of people who’re confused about Decision Theory. This post got 111 comments, and it’s hard to see your doing worse than the recent SIAI-flamewar.
I think that you should finish this sequence on lesswrong.
It is less technical and easier to understand than other posts on Decision Theory, and would therefore be valuable for newcomers.
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.