After reading more of the discussion on this post, I think my reply here was conflating different notions of “open” in a way which has been pointed out already in comments.
I’m currently fairly swayed that the alignment forum should be more “open” in the sense Peter intends:
Per my definition of closed, no academic discussion is closed, because anyone in theory can get a paper accepted to a journal/conference, attend the related meaning, and participate in the discourse. I am not actually talking about visibility to the broader public, but rather the access of any individual to the discourse, which feels more important to me.
However, I am not sure how to accomplish this. (Specifically, I am not sure how to accomplish this without too much added work, and maintaining other properties we want the forum to have.)
After reading more of the discussion on this post, I think my reply here was conflating different notions of “open” in a way which has been pointed out already in comments.
I’m currently fairly swayed that the alignment forum should be more “open” in the sense Peter intends:
However, I am not sure how to accomplish this. (Specifically, I am not sure how to accomplish this without too much added work, and maintaining other properties we want the forum to have.)