Meta: I strung together a bunch of Slack, etc, comments together in a hopefully coherent/readable way, and then realized my comment is too long so added approximate section headings in case it’s helpful.
Requesting feedback:
1. Is the above comment in fact coherent and readable? 2. Are the headings useful for you? Or are they just kind of annoying/jarring and didn’t actually add much useful structure?
I found the above comment coherent, readable, and useful as a complementary framework to the original post (which I also liked)
Two things I think this comment added that I’d have ideally liked to see the original post more explicitly note are that neither the comment nor post discussed the important matters of:
“Across-cause prioritization: Whether the marginal $ spent on research is better spent elsewhere
Prioritization in the context of differential technological progress: Whether we’re correctly differentially progressing research
that’s generically good for the long-term future over stuff that’s neutral or bad
(I think the post and comment already covered a lot of important ground, and it’s ok that they didn’t address these things, but these things are crucial considerations here and so their omission should be very clearly noted.)
I found it useful that the section headings broke the comment up into chunks
I think the actual words of the section headings didn’t matter / weren’t helpful (though nor were they harmful)
It would’ve been equally fine from my perpsective to use other words, just break things up with “—”, or organise the comment as bullet points and let a non-bulleted line or minimally indented line signify the start of a new “chunk”
(I work at the same org as Linch and David Reinstein, but all opinions here are my own, of course, and I’d be happy to disagree with them publicly if indeed I did disagree.)
Meta: I strung together a bunch of Slack, etc, comments together in a hopefully coherent/readable way, and then realized my comment is too long so added approximate section headings in case it’s helpful.
Requesting feedback:
1. Is the above comment in fact coherent and readable?
2. Are the headings useful for you? Or are they just kind of annoying/jarring and didn’t actually add much useful structure?
FWIW:
I found the above comment coherent, readable, and useful as a complementary framework to the original post (which I also liked)
Two things I think this comment added that I’d have ideally liked to see the original post more explicitly note are that neither the comment nor post discussed the important matters of:
“Across-cause prioritization: Whether the marginal $ spent on research is better spent elsewhere
Prioritization in the context of differential technological progress: Whether we’re correctly differentially progressing research
that’s generically good for the long-term future over stuff that’s neutral or bad
that’s contingently good for the future given the technologies currently available (in other words, developing technologies in the right order).”
(I think the post and comment already covered a lot of important ground, and it’s ok that they didn’t address these things, but these things are crucial considerations here and so their omission should be very clearly noted.)
I found it useful that the section headings broke the comment up into chunks
I think the actual words of the section headings didn’t matter / weren’t helpful (though nor were they harmful)
It would’ve been equally fine from my perpsective to use other words, just break things up with “—”, or organise the comment as bullet points and let a non-bulleted line or minimally indented line signify the start of a new “chunk”
(I work at the same org as Linch and David Reinstein, but all opinions here are my own, of course, and I’d be happy to disagree with them publicly if indeed I did disagree.)