Tags Discussion/Talk Thread

post by Ruby · 2020-07-28T21:57:04.540Z · score: 29 (4 votes) · LW · GW · 24 comments


  Other relevant pages about tagging

The LessWrong dev team is hard at work creating Talk Pages/Discussion pages for tags. When they're done, every tag page will have a corresponding talk page which lets users discuss changes and improvements related to that tag.

We don't have that yet, so in the meantime, please make comments you have about tags (generally or for specific-tags) here. If you're talking about a specific tag, of course, make sure to link to it. You might also want to link back to your comment in the body of the tag description, e.g., "Tag Discussion here"

Examples of things you might comment about a tag:


Also, feel free to use this space to claim credit for tags you've worked hard to make great! (we'll give you karma!)

Other relevant pages about tagging


Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by abramdemski · 2020-07-31T15:30:03.617Z · score: 22 (5 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

I edited the Bayes Theorem / Bayesianism tag [? · GW]. There was a bracketed statement (something like [needs more]) next to the description of Bayesianism. At the time the description of "Bayesianism" was just:

Bayesianism is the broader philosophy inspired by the theorem.

I kept that text in there for now. It is accurate but seems misleading to me. Bayesianism is not primarily about Bayes Theorem at all. Which brings me to my main point:

1. Should the Bayes Theorem / Bayesianism tag be split up into two tags?

It is conceptually awkward to lump these two things together.

  • Bayes' Theorem is a theorem in probability theory. It holds true whether you are a Bayesian, a Frequentist, or most anything else.
  • Bayesianism is an interpretation of probability theory. It holds that probability is subjective. So these two are very different things.
    • As a consequence of this belief, Bayesians are more interested in applying Bayes' Theorem (while frequentists prefer other techniques such as p-values for similar purposes). But Bayes' Theorem has little to do with Bayesian philosophy. Indeed, Bayesians need not accept Bayes' Law as an update rule [LW · GW].

On the other hand, I expect this to never be a problem in practice. 

2. It's "Bayes' Theorem"

The last name of the man is Bayes. It's his theorem, so it's possessive. Standard written English adds an apostrophe at the end of words ending in s to make them possessive.

OTOH, who cares, writing Bayes' Theorem is annoying.

Should the tag name be edited?

For now I've made sure the usage in the tag description is correct, without editing the tag name.

comment by Ben Pace (Benito) · 2020-07-31T16:54:42.795Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

I find the "A / B" to be fairly ugly in tag naming, and think that even "A (and B)" is more attractive.

My guess is that we should just go with Bayesianism, because it feels more general? Like, if it's a wiki page later, the page on Bayesianism would naturally have a section on Bayes' Theorem that explains it.

comment by Ruby · 2020-07-31T19:12:00.980Z · score: 5 (3 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

I introduced the '/' convention in naming and think it 1) looks fine, 2) is very necessary to lump adjacent-enough concepts or things with two likely names into a single tag. Parentheses for the second thing would also likely imply it it lesser even more than being second already does.

comment by DanielFilan · 2020-07-31T16:19:39.619Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

FWIW I vote for "Bayes' Theorem" over "Bayes Theorem".

comment by abramdemski · 2020-07-31T16:47:30.187Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

Changed it.

comment by abramdemski · 2020-07-31T16:39:07.553Z · score: 12 (3 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

Just putting this here for now:

It seems to me like there should be a "logical uncertainty" tag that's more general than "logical induction", or at least the "logical induction" tag should be renamed to the more general one.

Probably the more general one should be made, rather than re-naming. But collecting all the stuff about logical uncertainty sounds like uncommonly much work (because I don't expect searching for "logical uncertainty" to necessarily get all the important stuff?).

comment by Ben Pace (Benito) · 2020-07-31T17:40:56.838Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

(I'm pro renaming for now.)

comment by Ruby · 2020-08-03T17:30:02.559Z · score: 10 (2 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

(Ben.) (Why do you talk in brackets?) ()




(Is it a test for GPT)?)

comment by Yoav Ravid · 2020-08-03T20:33:08.841Z · score: 14 (4 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

Making himself small [LW · GW] ;)

comment by abramdemski · 2020-08-03T16:13:10.001Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

I decided not to rename, because (iiuc) the address of the "logical uncertainty" tag would then be https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/logical-induction [? · GW], which would be weird given that there would also be a "logical induction" tag.

Instead I created the new tag and tagged everything under "logical induction" to also be under "logical uncertainty".

What I wasn't able to do was remove the inappropriate stuff from the logical induction tag. There are a number of things with that tag which are not really about logical induction, only logical uncertainty.

comment by Ruby · 2020-08-03T17:25:08.933Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

By default, if you rename a tag, the url will change to match the new name and the old url will be redirected to the new one (thus preserving any existing links to it). In the case we want to use an old url for one tag as the url for another (this has happened), we'd need to do some manual database stuff (but it can be done) and then ensure all existing links go to the right place. We can also delete tags easily.

At this point, would it just make sense to delete the logical induction tag and have its url redirect to the new logical uncertainty tag?

Or if you prefer, we can remove help remove tags. Eventually, assuming tagging continues to get used enough, I think we'll build proper tools to handle these splitting/merge situations.

comment by abramdemski · 2020-08-03T19:48:00.631Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

I don't think just deleting the logical induction tag is the right thing. I did what I did because I think there should be two separate tags.

I think the next step is to remove the logical induction tag from any posts which aren't LI-specific.

I have personally upvoted the logical induction tag on the items I think should be tagged "logical induction" and downvoted it on things which I especially think aren't appropriate. So (assuming you can see which things I personally upvoted) you could use that as a basis for removing tags.

comment by Ruby · 2020-08-03T20:10:45.209Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

Ah, my bad, wasn't clear to me that you thought Logical Uncertainty should be a superset of Logical Induction, and that Logical Induction should still exist separately. I misread it as being about maintaining url addresses.

Yeah, I can look at those votes and then vote with you (maybe help from another LW team member).

comment by abramdemski · 2020-07-31T16:58:36.003Z · score: 5 (3 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

I created the Truth, Semantics, and Meaning [? · GW] tag. Then I noticed that there was an empty map/territory [? · GW] tag. I tagged most of the truth stuff as map/territory.

Map/territory strikes me as a better tag than truth. The huge overlap between the two makes me think maybe truth shouldn't be a tag. However, these two tags are different.

  • Truth, Semantics, and Meaning is about the philosophy/metaphysics, and the more formal side. This means stuff about the liar paradox fits well here, whereas it doesn't so obviously belong in map/territory (though it certainly could).
    • Anything which talks about truth in itself -- rather than truth as a way of getting at semantics -- is like this. EG, arguably Eliezer's essay The Simple Truth [LW · GW] is not about map/territory at all, and is rather directly trying to discuss the word "truth" -- its usage and meaning.
  • Map/territory includes stuff like the mind projection fallacy. This doesn't really belong in Truth, Semantics, and Meaning, since it's more psychological and less about ideal rationality.
    • In fact, the tag description makes me think it was intended primarily to be about the "psychological" side.
    • Is the psychological side worth distinguishing from the formal-epistemological side?
comment by abramdemski · 2020-08-02T19:40:41.577Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

Is the "site meta [? · GW]" tag taking the place of https://www.lesswrong.com/meta [? · GW]?

comment by Ruby · 2020-08-02T20:20:55.458Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

I believe yes, though we haven't gotten around to fully deprecating/redirecting, etc.

comment by abramdemski · 2020-08-03T15:41:34.585Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

I'm curious how it'll work. I felt like meta content was pretty hidden before. If there's a desire to make meta stuff hidden by default, maybe it could be a hidden-by-default tag, but controlled via the same tag filtering as everything else, so that it's pretty obvious that it's hidden and how to un-hide it. Or maybe hiding it is bad.

comment by Ruby · 2020-08-03T17:21:41.859Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

My personal sense is that usually meta stuff should be neither hidden nor promoted, excluding announcements that should get extra exposure temporarily. I definitely want people to feel an affordance to discuss site meta, and also see thinking behind and past records.

I wasn't around when past decisions about meta were made, nor am I completely sure what others on the team think. We are, of course, open to feedback from others.

comment by Gyrodiot · 2020-07-31T12:25:28.116Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

I created the Growth Stories [? · GW] tag, but that may have been a mistake, since the Postmortem & Retrospectives [? · GW] tag already exists. Apologies!

comment by mr-hire · 2020-08-04T03:22:26.931Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

I created a "Case Study" tag which seems to overlap with both of these a bit?  Definitely seems like it could be different.

comment by Ruby · 2020-08-04T04:03:57.885Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

Those both feel distinct to me from P&R (if anything, Postmortems & Retrospectives is too big, idk). Growth Stories has ended up with several posts that seem like a good collection and don't really fit under P&R. The same could be true for Case Study except I don't know if we have enough posts to justify it? As a general heuristic, we don't want tags unless they've got several posts int them. (And we won't add them Tag Portal until they do, barring very rare exceptions.)

comment by Multicore (KaynanK) · 2020-07-31T01:56:16.831Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

I think there should be a tag for discussion of present-day AI progress outside of the context of alignment. For example "Understanding Deep Double Descent" https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FRv7ryoqtvSuqBxuT?lw_source=posts_sheet [? · GW] . Right now the only tag for that is the core tag "AI", which is too broad.

But I'm not sure what to call it. Ideas: "Prosaic AI", "Machine Learning", "Neural Networks", "AI Progress", "AI Capabilities".

comment by Ruby · 2020-07-31T02:24:48.551Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

Also thanks for your prodigious tagging effort! Let me know if you want to chat (send you a DM).

comment by Ben Pace (Benito) · 2020-07-31T02:17:45.774Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

I'd use the machine learning tag [? · GW].