That’s what downvoting is for. (And, perhaps, commenting with “I downvoted this because I consider it off-topic for the main site, but I will remove my downvote if you move it to the Discussion section.”)
Would it be fair to say that my last two posts were similarly off-topic (they were both descriptions of widgets that would be used for AI boxing)? I have a very imprecise conception of what is and what is not on-topic for the main site.
Would it be fair to say that my last two posts were similarly off-topic (they were both descriptions of widgets that would be used for AI boxing)?
In my opinion, yes, as it’s not about development or application of rationality, and free discussion of transhumanist topics will damage the rationality site. But I think it’s fine for the discussion area.
It wasn’t the topicness so much as the degree to which the post seemed written in the form of… natter, maybe, would be the word to describe it? It read like Discussion, and not like a main LW post.
I agree, but is the writing style your real objection? If I were an under-rated fAI researcher moderating a website, I’d be annoyed if I saw a main-page post purporting to be humble but still missing the cutting edge of usefulness by several levels of skill. I’d move it to the discussion page by way of emphasizing how far the poster still had to go to be as skilled as I am.
Sure: a third reason might be because leaving low-level posts on friendliness on the top page encourages people to misunderestimate how difficult friendliness is, which might lead them to trivialize the whole project, donate less to SIAI, and/or try to build their own non-provably friendly AI.
The interesting question is why you would remark on writing style if the third reason were your true objection. Maybe you’ve got some other objection altogether—it’s not that important to me; I like your blog and you can move stuff around on it if you feel like it.
I disagree with this particular use of moderation power. That’s what not-promoting is for.
It’s not particularly on-topic for the main site.
That’s what downvoting is for. (And, perhaps, commenting with “I downvoted this because I consider it off-topic for the main site, but I will remove my downvote if you move it to the Discussion section.”)
Would it be fair to say that my last two posts were similarly off-topic (they were both descriptions of widgets that would be used for AI boxing)? I have a very imprecise conception of what is and what is not on-topic for the main site.
In my opinion, yes, as it’s not about development or application of rationality, and free discussion of transhumanist topics will damage the rationality site. But I think it’s fine for the discussion area.
It wasn’t the topicness so much as the degree to which the post seemed written in the form of… natter, maybe, would be the word to describe it? It read like Discussion, and not like a main LW post.
I agree, but is the writing style your real objection? If I were an under-rated fAI researcher moderating a website, I’d be annoyed if I saw a main-page post purporting to be humble but still missing the cutting edge of usefulness by several levels of skill. I’d move it to the discussion page by way of emphasizing how far the poster still had to go to be as skilled as I am.
A tad too much cynicism, there. You can’t think of any other reason to move it to the Discussion page, under those circumstances?
Sure: a third reason might be because leaving low-level posts on friendliness on the top page encourages people to misunderestimate how difficult friendliness is, which might lead them to trivialize the whole project, donate less to SIAI, and/or try to build their own non-provably friendly AI.
The interesting question is why you would remark on writing style if the third reason were your true objection. Maybe you’ve got some other objection altogether—it’s not that important to me; I like your blog and you can move stuff around on it if you feel like it.