LessWrong 2.0 Reader

Yeah, I don't know how typical that frontpage full of AI is, I just checked as I was writing the review. It seems like if you don't de-emphasize AI content at this point though, it's easy for AI to overwhelm everything else. 

One idea if you want like, a minimal change (as opposed to a more radical archipelago approach) is to penalize each extra post of the same tag on the frontpage? I don't know how complicated that would be under the hood. I'd be happy to see the one or two hottest AI posts, I just don't want to see 3/4ths AI and have to search for the other posts.

To be clear, I think there's a bunch of AI posts on the front page because that's what's getting upvoted, and also if LessWrong does want to show mostly AI posts then especially given the state of the world that's a reasonable priority. It's not what I usually write or usually read, but LessWrong doesn't have to be set up for me- I'm just going to keep reviewing it from my perspective.

I don't disagree. I assumed Raemon intended something more elaborate than just a salient button with this effect.

I will cheerfully bet at 1:1 odds that half the people who show up on LessWrong do not know how to filter posts on the frontpage. Last time I asked that on a survey [LW · GW] it was close to 50% and I'm pretty sure selection effects for who takes the LW Census pushed that number up.

Fair. For reference, here are my selections which are I think are a good default strategy for people who just come to LW for AI/AI safety reasons:

(Why "-" a bunch of stuff rather than "+" AI? Well, because "+" adds some fixed karma while "-" multiplies by a constant (less than 1), and I don't think adding karma is a good strategy (as it shows you really random posts often). I do like minus-ing these specific things also. If I could, I'd probably do AI * 1.5 and then reduce the negative weight on these things a bit.)

So this might be a good suggestion for a "AI focus" preset.

"Isn't it weird an arbitrary to make a front-and-center choice 'hey wanna turn off the AI content'?" yes, which is why we didn't do it the last couple times we talked about it.

What makes you think that we're not at year(TAI)-3 right now? I'll agree that we might not be there yet, but you seem to be assuming that we can't be.

Yes but it's an out-of-the-way button mixed in with a bunch of buttons, as opposed to like, kinda the primary choice you're expected to make on the site.

I don't understand. Can't people just hide posts tagged as AI?

Thanks for the feedback. but I think you're deeply misunderstanding: Upgradable (a.k.a., 700,000 Hours) is and always has been entirely free to do on your own. Similarly, you can read the 80,000 Hours website or use the CFAR handbook to improve your career or your rationality. With CFAR, you did have to pay for the workshops. You might not realize how difficult it is to do this kind of work without a stable financial base, as seen with the recent challenges with Lightcone's finances. 

If it wasn't clear, Upgradable was designed specifically to help people maximize the amount of good they can do with their lives (and started around the time when the rationality and EA movements started). If you did want to work with a coach, you and the coach would collaboratively set your price together. It can be a pay for results or it's free model, in some cases.

Nothing on my site was LLMed and I've never learned SEO. I actually only put the site back up after many years of nothing being live. I prefer privacy and leading a quieter life. It's quite painful to try to be "out there" again to spread this message. (Primarily because of the hostility anyone in the spotlight gets, like in this case.)

If you don't think I'm real or that I haven't spent my lifetime in the fight to make a better world, I'm not sure what I can say to convince you. My history is quite public and easy to research. I'm 26+ years in. The pledges I've taken are also public and we'd be happy to open books to external auditors. That's the plan for Profits for Safety (profitsforsafety.org) organizations if it takes off.

Kindly don't let your dislike of a person distract you from taking action to ensure humanity's future. The point of Collective Action for Existential Safety is to get people to act strategically to help the world. In that spirit, I hope you do use the resources to improve your impact. 

How do you propose that reasonable actors prevent reality from being fragile and dangerous?

Cyber attacks are generally based on poor protocols. Over time smart reasonable people can convince less smart reasonable people to follow better ones. Can reasonable people convince reality to follow better protocols?

As soon as you get into proposing solutions to this sort of problem, they start to look a lot less reasonable by current standards.