A while ago I got most of the way to set up a feature on LW/AIAF that would export LW/AIAF posts to a nicely formatted academic-looking PDF that is linkable. I ended up running into a hurdle somewhat close to the end and shelved the feature, but if there is a lot of demand here, I could probably finish up the work, which would make this process even easier.

I am strongly in favor of our very best content going on arXiv. Both communities should engage more with each other.

As follows are suggestions for posting to arXiv. As a rule of thumb, if the content of a blogpost didn't take >300 hours of labor to create, then it probably should not go on arXiv. Maintaining a basic quality bar prevents arXiv from being overriden by people who like writing up many of their inchoate thoughts; publication standards are different for LW/AF than for arXiv. Even if a researcher spent many hours on the project, arXiv moderators do not want research that's below a certain bar. arXiv moderators have reminded some professors that they will likely reject papers at the quality level of a Stanford undergraduate team project (e.g., http://cs231n.stanford.edu/2017/reports.html); consequently labor, topicality, and conforming to formatting standards is not sufficient for arXiv approval. Usually one's first research project won't be good enough for arXiv. Furthermore, conceptual/philosophical pieces probably should be primarily posted on arXiv's .CY section. For more technical deep learning content, do not make the mistake of only putting it on .AI; these should probably go on .LG (machine learning) or .CV (computer vision) or .CL (NLP). arXiv's .ML section is for more statistical/theoretical machine learning audiences. For content to be approved without complications, it should likely conform to standard (ICLR, ICML, NeurIPS, CVPR, ECCV, ICCV,  ACL, EMNLP) formatting. This means automatic blogpost exporting is likely not viable. In trying to diffuse ideas to the broader ML community, we should avoid making the arXiv moderators mad at us.

Arxiv posts should be on LessWrong*

${}^{harharhar}$

Note that arXiv does have some gatekeeping: you must get an "endorsement" before submitting your first paper to any subject area. Details.

It can be as easy as creating a pdf of your post and submitting it (although if your post was written in LaTeX, they'll want the tex file). If everything goes well, this takes less than an hour. 

Hilariously, this does not work. I converted my Grokking post to a PDF (very crudely - just printing to PDF) and uploaded that, and it was rejected: 

Dear author,

Thank you for submitting your work to arXiv. We regret to inform you that arXiv’s moderators have determined that your submission will not be accepted and made public on[ |http://arxiv.org][arXiv.org|http://arxiv.org].  

In this case, our moderators have determined that your submission is a content type that arXiv does not accept:

Blog post

Some reports are not publicised in order not to speed up timelines. And ELK is a bit rambly - I wonder if it will get subsumed by much better content within 2yr. But I do largely agree.

I also strongly endorse this based on my experience. I was a research consultant who created evidence summaries for decision makers in industry and government. This usually involved searching for published content. Anything that wasn't indexed by Google Scholar/publication repositories was almost always excluded. 

Update 2: The nicely LaTeXed version of my Grokking post was also rejected from Arxiv?! I'll revisit this at some point in the next few weeks, but I'm going to give up on this for now. I consider this a mark against putting posts on Arxiv being an easy and fairly low effort thing to do (though plausibly still worth the effort).

Could this be accomplished with literally zero effort from the post-writers? The tasks of identifying which posts are arXiv-worthy, formatting for submission, and doing the submission all seem like they could be done by entities other than the author. The only issue might be in associating the arXiv submitter account with the right person.

Some advice for getting papers accepted on arxiv

As some other comments have pointed out, there is a certain amount of moderation on arXiv. This is a little opaque, so below is an attempt to summarise some things that are likely to make it easier to get your paper accepted. I'm sure the list is very incomplete!

In writing this I don't want to give the impression that posting things to arXiv is hard; I have currently 28 papers there, have never had a single problem or delay with moderation, and the submission process generally takes me <15 mins these days.

1. Endorsement. When you first attempt to submit a paper you may need to be endorsed. JanBrauner kindly offered below to help people with endorsements; I might also be able to do the same, but I've never posted in the CS part of arXiv, so not sure how effective this will be. However, even better to avoid need for moderation. To this end, use an academic email address if you have one; this is quite likely to already be enough. Also, see below on subject classes (endorsement requirements depend on which subject class(es) you want to post in).

2. Choosing subject classes. Each paper gets one or more subject classes, like CS.AI; see [https://arxiv.org/category_taxonomy] for a list. Some subject classes attract more junk than others, and the ones that attract more junk are more heavily moderated. In mathematics, it is math.GM (General Mathematics) that attracts most junk, hence is most heavily moderated. I guess most people here are looking at CS.AI, I don't know what this is like. But one easy thing is to minimise cross-listing (adding additional subject classes for your paper), as then you are moderated by all of them.

3. Write in (la)tex, submit the tex file. You don't have to do this, but it is standard and preferred by the arXiv, and I suspect makes it less likely your paper gets flagged for moderation. It is also an easy way to make sure your paper looks like a serious academic paper.

4. It is possible to submit papers on behalf of third parties. I've never done this, and I suspect such papers will be more heavily moderated.

5. If you have multiple authors, it doesn't really matter who submits. After the submission is posted you are sent a 'paper password' allowing coauthors to 'claim' the paper; it is then associated to their arXiv account, orcid etc (orcid is optional, but a really good idea, and free).

Finally, a request: please be nice to the moderators! They are generally unpaid volunteers doing a valuable service to the community (e.g. making sure I don't have to read nonsense proofs of the Riemann hypothesis every morning). Of course it doesn't feel good if your paper gets held up, but please try not to take it personally.

I am not sure how useful it is, except for status purposes. If you search for a topic in, say, AI safety, the top hits would be LW and the alignment forum, having the same post on arxiv does not add anything, and a PDF is not nearly is convenient to search or browse as a raw post.

It might be useful to add a quick summary of how arXiv works. I vaguely had the impression that anyone could upload PDFs to it, but some of the comments seem to pretty solidly disagree with that.

Wonderful post, thank you. :)

To build on the benefit you noted here:

5. better citability (e.g. if somebody writes an ML paper to be published in ML venues, it gives more credibility to cite arXiv papers than Alignment Forum/LessWrong posts.

There are some areas of work whereby it's useful to not be implicitly communicating that you affiliate with a somewhat weird group like LW or AF folks but you want the content to be read at face value when you share it with folks who are coming from different subcultures and perspectives. I think it'd be hugely valuable for this collection of people who are sharing things.

This seems solvable and very much worth solving!

It would be worth paying someone to do this in a centralized way:

1. Reach out to authors
2. Convert to LaTeX, edit
3. Publish

If someone is interested in doing this, reach out to me (campos.simeon @gmail.com)

I agree.  AI safety literature seems irrelevantly disconnected from the ML literature and I imagine that in large part is caused by simple citation dynamics and non-availability in academic literature.  There's arguments against publishing on arXiv when we talk about info hazards but these seem negligible.