With the exception of thesetwo comments, all suggested splits are nonsensical; the lines used for division are unclear and the sections created serve no real purpose. If your goal is to promote growth, evolve into categories. As it stands, most of these suggestions would just split an already fragmented community.
I do notice a pattern among the suggestions though; people would like to see MIRI-centric stuff filtered out. To whoever is in charge or LessWrong, this is liable to seem like a bad thing, like it will exacerbate an existential concern, like the very act of allowing the premise to be considered is immoral, even. (I’m sure at least one MIRI Fellow feels that way.) This could not be more patently untrue; lack of advancement of rationality is what’s making the threat worse. Sectioning MIRI off makes it easier to focus on. Yes, it creates the potential for it to be specifically ignored, but with the existing community, that’s simply not going to be the case. Let’s face it: This site is MIR’s masturbation blog. Sectioning off the MIRI parts allows other parts to take root and grow. This is the growth that is needed most. You don’t want MIRI to dominate any section of subsection of LessWrong in any way. It will dominate inevitably, exacerbating the effect can only impede growth. By chance, people coming to LessWrong for the non-MIRI parts are liable to become aware of the threats MIRI preaches, achieving the critical effect, but that won’t happen without the initial growth.
And now, to shoot that idea in the foot, I propose further category growth: I have spent considerable time thinking about the nature of discussion and how to improve and facilitate it. The answer is: Factions. Even on major points where I disagree with MIRI, I would be willing to stay silent if it would mean having a subsection where I, and others like myself, could advance the goal we see fit to ensure the best possible future for everyone. That’s right: Not only am I recommending you take a step back, I’m recommending encouraging your own competition.
Note that this is entirely upside-down with how things currently are. That is intentional. Why do you think I’m bypassing MIRI if not for its completely upside-down and backwards way of suffering the exact same problems as everyone else?
Viva la evolution!
It’s like you guys reject the premise that things improve post-revolution in this one specific way, because, while actively acknowledging you can’t predict the future, you still think you understand it best. I’ll give you a hint as to why: The people you’re looking for have been raised to know better than to trust anyone who comes looking for them.
Whatever.
This is just another dumb post by another loony with strong opinions. Showing awareness of that sure isn’t evidence enough for me to overcome my cognitive biases, especially not if this guy has the gall to mention them to me in my own paraphrased internal monologue.
...
Wait, what?
Nah, it’s just a trick. Let’s just go do what we set out to do. What are the actual odds we’re wrong? Certainly, with all the evidence we’ve collected, there is only one Bayesian measurement/conclusion. It’s not like we only collected the data we wanted to see.
Then again...
Maybe I’m being too harsh. You’re only human, after all. Feel free to make mistakes.
In the interest of avoiding inferential silence: the fucking Hell are you talking about? Pretend MIRI never existed and explain to me why I want this “post-MIRI” website you speak of. (Let’s say that, eg, CSER still exists and still lists Stephen Hawking among its advisers.)
I apologize for any confusion: My comment is rather directed at the ones running LessWrong, because I am all too aware that people in charge are more or less entirely incapable of legitimately taking criticism from a crowd. That is; I intended to stand out in a way that can’t be ignored by the mindset of a manager who happens to value rationality. (Also I was in an extremely jaded mood when I wrote that. <.<)
It’s not that you should want such a thing, it’s rather that, if MIRI understood online community evolution, they would want to encourage the existence of such things. I wouldn’t expect to get my own special “subreddit” (not the same as a website) for only me and people that understand me well/agree with me, and I’d probably refuse such an offer if it was given. If MIRI never existed, there could be no such, “MIRI simply isn’t good enough,” subsection. MIRI is useful as an organization because CSER wasn’t good enough. In the same way, I don’t see MIRI as nearly good enough to accomplish its goals of ensuring a positive future, so I see fit to evolve past it and create a better organization. Whether anyone can provide such a thing or not, would you not be interested in seeing something more advanced/effective/useful than MIRI?
With the exception of these two comments, all suggested splits are nonsensical; the lines used for division are unclear and the sections created serve no real purpose. If your goal is to promote growth, evolve into categories. As it stands, most of these suggestions would just split an already fragmented community.
I do notice a pattern among the suggestions though; people would like to see MIRI-centric stuff filtered out. To whoever is in charge or LessWrong, this is liable to seem like a bad thing, like it will exacerbate an existential concern, like the very act of allowing the premise to be considered is immoral, even. (I’m sure at least one MIRI Fellow feels that way.) This could not be more patently untrue; lack of advancement of rationality is what’s making the threat worse. Sectioning MIRI off makes it easier to focus on. Yes, it creates the potential for it to be specifically ignored, but with the existing community, that’s simply not going to be the case. Let’s face it: This site is MIR’s masturbation blog. Sectioning off the MIRI parts allows other parts to take root and grow. This is the growth that is needed most. You don’t want MIRI to dominate any section of subsection of LessWrong in any way. It will dominate inevitably, exacerbating the effect can only impede growth. By chance, people coming to LessWrong for the non-MIRI parts are liable to become aware of the threats MIRI preaches, achieving the critical effect, but that won’t happen without the initial growth.
And now, to shoot that idea in the foot, I propose further category growth: I have spent considerable time thinking about the nature of discussion and how to improve and facilitate it. The answer is: Factions. Even on major points where I disagree with MIRI, I would be willing to stay silent if it would mean having a subsection where I, and others like myself, could advance the goal we see fit to ensure the best possible future for everyone. That’s right: Not only am I recommending you take a step back, I’m recommending encouraging your own competition.
My seed proposal:
MIRI, The Future, and X-risks. (Currently: Main)
Post-MIRI (That cabal I’m working on.)
LessWrong (Currently: Discussion.)
Note that this is entirely upside-down with how things currently are. That is intentional. Why do you think I’m bypassing MIRI if not for its completely upside-down and backwards way of suffering the exact same problems as everyone else?
Viva la evolution!
It’s like you guys reject the premise that things improve post-revolution in this one specific way, because, while actively acknowledging you can’t predict the future, you still think you understand it best. I’ll give you a hint as to why: The people you’re looking for have been raised to know better than to trust anyone who comes looking for them.
Whatever.
This is just another dumb post by another loony with strong opinions. Showing awareness of that sure isn’t evidence enough for me to overcome my cognitive biases, especially not if this guy has the gall to mention them to me in my own paraphrased internal monologue.
...
Wait, what?
Nah, it’s just a trick. Let’s just go do what we set out to do. What are the actual odds we’re wrong? Certainly, with all the evidence we’ve collected, there is only one Bayesian measurement/conclusion. It’s not like we only collected the data we wanted to see.
Then again...
Maybe I’m being too harsh. You’re only human, after all. Feel free to make mistakes.
In the interest of avoiding inferential silence: the fucking Hell are you talking about? Pretend MIRI never existed and explain to me why I want this “post-MIRI” website you speak of. (Let’s say that, eg, CSER still exists and still lists Stephen Hawking among its advisers.)
Thank you for avoiding inferential silence!
I apologize for any confusion: My comment is rather directed at the ones running LessWrong, because I am all too aware that people in charge are more or less entirely incapable of legitimately taking criticism from a crowd. That is; I intended to stand out in a way that can’t be ignored by the mindset of a manager who happens to value rationality. (Also I was in an extremely jaded mood when I wrote that. <.<)
It’s not that you should want such a thing, it’s rather that, if MIRI understood online community evolution, they would want to encourage the existence of such things. I wouldn’t expect to get my own special “subreddit” (not the same as a website) for only me and people that understand me well/agree with me, and I’d probably refuse such an offer if it was given. If MIRI never existed, there could be no such, “MIRI simply isn’t good enough,” subsection. MIRI is useful as an organization because CSER wasn’t good enough. In the same way, I don’t see MIRI as nearly good enough to accomplish its goals of ensuring a positive future, so I see fit to evolve past it and create a better organization. Whether anyone can provide such a thing or not, would you not be interested in seeing something more advanced/effective/useful than MIRI?