Very interesting to see but isn’t it a little strange that the jury is comprised of the author of the work to be criticised and their co-author? Doesn’t that risk muddling their incentives when judging the contest entries?
Thanks for raising this. I agree the setup isn’t ideal, but the listed judges are the people who combine sufficiently good judgement + relevant expertise and—crucially—willingness to put in the time. (I did try to enlist other experts, but it didn’t come together.)
the jury is comprised of the author of the work to be criticised and their co-author
To clarify, the essay panel isn’t just the author plus a collaborator—it’s three people: Anthony (who wrote the sequence), Jesse (who collaborated on related work), and Andreas Mogensen, an Oxford philosopher who has previously worked on cluelessness but who had no involvement in the sequence and is independent of it. I’m not sure this fully dissolves the biases/incentives concern, but I hope it goes some way toward doing so.
Very interesting to see but isn’t it a little strange that the jury is comprised of the author of the work to be criticised and their co-author? Doesn’t that risk muddling their incentives when judging the contest entries?
Thanks for raising this. I agree the setup isn’t ideal, but the listed judges are the people who combine sufficiently good judgement + relevant expertise and—crucially—willingness to put in the time. (I did try to enlist other experts, but it didn’t come together.)
To clarify, the essay panel isn’t just the author plus a collaborator—it’s three people: Anthony (who wrote the sequence), Jesse (who collaborated on related work), and Andreas Mogensen, an Oxford philosopher who has previously worked on cluelessness but who had no involvement in the sequence and is independent of it. I’m not sure this fully dissolves the biases/incentives concern, but I hope it goes some way toward doing so.