I’m interested in fleshing out “what you’re looking for”; do you have some examples of things written in the past which changed your minds, which you would have awarded prizes to?
For example, I thought about my old comment on patient long-termism, which observes that in order to say “I’m waiting to give later” as a complete strategy you need to identify the conditions under which you would stop waiting (as otherwise, your strategy is to give never). On the one hand, it feels “too short” to be considered, but on the other hand, it seems long enough to convey its point (at least, embedded in context as it was), and so any additional length would be ‘more cost without benefit’.
This won the community’s award for post of the decade. Its disagreement with EA feels half-fundamental; a sweeping change to implementation details and some methods.
This was much-needed and pretty damning. About twice as long as it needed to be though.
This is on the small end of important, but still rich and additive.
This added momentum to the great intangibles vibe shift of 2016-8
This was influential, bizarrely necessary to correct a community bubble which burned a lot of time and mental health. But hardly fundamental.
Can’t remember where it was, a Progress Studies bit about how basic science looks bad on a naive cost-benefit view but has to date clearly been the fount of utility
I like your comment and would’ve taken it seriously, but this contest is only accepting things written after March 2022. Here’s a form for older stuff (no cash yet sorry).
I’m interested in fleshing out “what you’re looking for”; do you have some examples of things written in the past which changed your minds, which you would have awarded prizes to?
For example, I thought about my old comment on patient long-termism, which observes that in order to say “I’m waiting to give later” as a complete strategy you need to identify the conditions under which you would stop waiting (as otherwise, your strategy is to give never). On the one hand, it feels “too short” to be considered, but on the other hand, it seems long enough to convey its point (at least, embedded in context as it was), and so any additional length would be ‘more cost without benefit’.
Random personal examples:
This won the community’s award for post of the decade. Its disagreement with EA feels half-fundamental; a sweeping change to implementation details and some methods.
This was much-needed and pretty damning. About twice as long as it needed to be though.
This old debate looks good in hindsight
The initial patient longtermist posts shook me up a lot.
Robbie’s anons were really good
This is on the small end of important, but still rich and additive.
This added momentum to the great intangibles vibe shift of 2016-8
This was influential, bizarrely necessary to correct a community bubble which burned a lot of time and mental health. But hardly fundamental.
Can’t remember where it was, a Progress Studies bit about how basic science looks bad on a naive cost-benefit view but has to date clearly been the fount of utility
EA is (was?) ignoring criticism
I like your comment and would’ve taken it seriously, but this contest is only accepting things written after March 2022. Here’s a form for older stuff (no cash yet sorry).