Hey! I think it’s cool that you created new tags. That being said, I do think that your description of category theory is not only a stub, but completely uninformative and dismissive about a mathematical field that has almost 70 years of work in it. I do think that explaining the controversy on the applicability of category theory is valuable, as we should question whether to use it for rationality and AI. But that should be a note at the end of the tag description, not the entire content of it.
(Note that I didn’t change the tag description, because I don’t want to force a change if I’m the only one thinking that. Maybe the point is only to describe how the word in the tag is used in LW, in which case the current tag description might work.)
I agree with you, i struggled writing the description for it as i know very little about it, i just saw that it doesn’t exist yet and went ahead creating it (maybe it would have been better if i left it with no description?). so i say go ahead and edit it, you’ll surely do a better job than me :)
ahahaha that tag description is hilarious (no offesne Yoav, thanks for making the tag!). adamShimi, please feel very welcome to change that tag description.
As I’ve said a bit elsethread, I’m very in favor of 1) people creating tags they think should exist even if they don’t know the topic well, 2) other people jumping in improving them where they see possible. I hope talk pages will make it easy to discuss any changes made, but most of the time I expect they’ll just be all-round welcome improvements that don’t need debating.
In short, if you think there’s an improvement to be made, go for it! Even if you’re not sure that anyone else agrees. Let them object after the fact.
More philosophical, I think we generally want to define terms like category theory in their proper standard usage. If the LW usage is off, we probably want to correct that or at least note the divergence in any description. (I don’t remember if the S1/S2 description, but it would be good if it noted the difference between academic meaning and how it gets used around here).
If you end up writing an improved Category Theory description, I look forward to reading it.
Hey! I think it’s cool that you created new tags. That being said, I do think that your description of category theory is not only a stub, but completely uninformative and dismissive about a mathematical field that has almost 70 years of work in it. I do think that explaining the controversy on the applicability of category theory is valuable, as we should question whether to use it for rationality and AI. But that should be a note at the end of the tag description, not the entire content of it.
(Note that I didn’t change the tag description, because I don’t want to force a change if I’m the only one thinking that. Maybe the point is only to describe how the word in the tag is used in LW, in which case the current tag description might work.)
I agree with you, i struggled writing the description for it as i know very little about it, i just saw that it doesn’t exist yet and went ahead creating it (maybe it would have been better if i left it with no description?). so i say go ahead and edit it, you’ll surely do a better job than me :)
I wrote a first version of the new tag description, I might rewrite some parts of it later. ;)
Thanks, much better :D
+1 to be people creating tags they think are needed even if they’re not sure about the description.
Thanks :)
In that case is it better to not write a description or write something knowing there’s a high chance it’ll be wrong (and leaving a note about it)?
My general philosophy is “better a description than no description”.
I think it was the right call to write the tag descriptions that you did :)
Yeah, I’d continue to write something knowing there’s a high change it’ll be wrong.
ahahaha that tag description is hilarious (no offesne Yoav, thanks for making the tag!). adamShimi, please feel very welcome to change that tag description.
Well at least i made someone laugh :D
As I’ve said a bit elsethread, I’m very in favor of 1) people creating tags they think should exist even if they don’t know the topic well, 2) other people jumping in improving them where they see possible. I hope talk pages will make it easy to discuss any changes made, but most of the time I expect they’ll just be all-round welcome improvements that don’t need debating.
In short, if you think there’s an improvement to be made, go for it! Even if you’re not sure that anyone else agrees. Let them object after the fact.
More philosophical, I think we generally want to define terms like category theory in their proper standard usage. If the LW usage is off, we probably want to correct that or at least note the divergence in any description. (I don’t remember if the S1/S2 description, but it would be good if it noted the difference between academic meaning and how it gets used around here).
If you end up writing an improved Category Theory description, I look forward to reading it.