Thanks for voicing these concerns! Youâve articulated a not-uncommon point of view on how the Forum ought to be used, and one that we try to incorporate into our work alongside many other points of view.
Iâve heard some people express a desire for the Forum to look more like a peer-reviewed journal. Iâve heard even more express concerns in the opposite direction â that the site feels like it has a very high bar for engagement, and any content other than serious research seems suitable only for Facebook (many of those people are trying to use Facebook less or not at all).
Other people have told me that they just really enjoy creative writing, art, jokes, etc., and want the Forum to represent that side of EA culture. Sometimes, the creative work is a big part of what drew them to the movement in the first place.
I think that examples like âThe Fable of the Dragon-Tyrantâ show that more âcreativeâ EA content clearly has a place in the movement, and that weâd be better off with more stories of that quality. Hence, the writing contest.
Just as not all research on the Forum is as strong as e.g. that of Rethink Priorities, not all stories will be cultural touchstones that stand the test of time. Still, I think the gems are worth having a lot of rougher content show up.
The encouragement for people to share their work in public (rather than quietly submitting it through a form) is partly in response to feedback about the Forumâs âhigh barâ, and partly to encourage more representation for that side of EA culture. I want to encourage people to share their work and not worry as much about whether something âqualifiesâ to be here.
(Some of the Forumâs best posts have started with an author emailing me to say something like âI donât know if this is a good fit, but I figured I would checkâ. I donât know how many additional posts we miss because people give up without asking me.)
***
As for the Clickhole and meme posts â both of these happened as a result of my thinking about âEA artâ a bunch as I worked on the contest, but I understand that having everything appear back-to-back could create a sense of unease!
I donât expect this to be a rising trend past the time of the creative writing contest â this was just a chance for me to share a couple of things Iâd drafted or thought of long ago.
I think that humorous/âcreative posts have a place on the front page, which is explicitly about ârelatedness to EAâ rather than metrics of seriousness or âqualityâ. That said, the meme post now has negative karma notwithstanding my default vote, so people seem to agree that itâs not a good fit; Iâve moved it to personal blog given that feedback.
I still stand by the Clickhole post being a genuinely good piece on the importance of cause prioritization, and most people seemed to like it.
*****
Thanks for suggesting concrete actions! Here are my thoughts:
Create a peer-reviewed forum on top of the EA Forum, which curates research/âthoughtful content. An interface like the Alignment Forum /â LessWrong would work well for this.
Are the Alignment Forum and LessWrong âpeer-reviewedâ in any sense that the Forum isnât? The former has limits on who can post in the first place, but that doesnât seem like the same thing. (I may be unaware of some peer-review policy on one or both sites, though.)
Weâve had some internal discussions about what the EA Forumâs equivalent(s) of the Alignment Forum might be, and itâs very possible that weâll eventually produce a space for curated research content. Weâre reaching the end of our current âForum yearâ (September 2020 - September 2021) and considering new initiatives we may launch for 2022; this is on the list of possibilities.
Create a separate place of discourse (a Facebook group?) for fun content, perhaps linked somehow from the EA Forum.
I like Facebook, but a lot of people really donât, and that site continues to be difficult to search, filter, etc. I think the Forum has useful features that people who like âfun contentâ should also be able to use.
More generally, we think of the Forumâs purpose as âthe center of EA discussion onlineâ. Not just research, but also community building, events, announcements, AMAs, short stories, and April Foolâs jokes. All of these things seem like they help communities grow and flourish.
That said, I understand the concern about whether it makes sense to have everything presented in a single feed. Thatâs why weâve been building up our tag infrastructure and encouraging people to use filters â rather than present everything to everyone, we think itâs better to let people choose what they want to see. But I donât think that has to mean separate websites.
Have the fun content be hidden by default, like personal posts, so people need to opt into it.
Is this a better option than âshow this by default, and let people opt out of itâ?
Personal posts can literally be about anything, as long as they donât violate our rules. Humorous posts that arenât EA-related, or posts authors would prefer be less visible, are hidden by the default personal filter. Filtering out a subset of EA-related posts based on our assumption that most people donât want to see them seems like a bigger step.
For some context, hereâs a sample of what Iâve been working on recently for the Forum, outside of the creative writing contest:
Working to set up five new AMAs (uncertain how many will end up coming together) with serious thinkers
Presenting to the Stanford Existential Risk Initiative on the topic of âtaking your summer research project and posting it on the Forumâ, then helping lots of individual researchers (~10 so far) prepare to do so
Helping Holden Karnofsky crosspost his Cold Takes content to the Forum so that itâs available as soon as he publishes the blog versions
Continuing to help other people with content they submit for feedback (steady stream of 1-2 people per week)
Continuing to refine the Forumâs version of the EA Handbook (and serving as a facilitator for three live Virtual Program cohorts to get more input on how people experience the âofficialâ version of this material, which has helped me improve the Forum version)
Creating a PR FAQ for a new metrics feature that should inspire more sharing of âserious workâ by its authors, hopefully drawing more attention to it
Adding a lot more recent Forum content to CEAâs social media feeds, so that the best material (almost always serious work) reaches more readers. Weâd been on a social media hiatus until ~two months ago, but engagement since we returned has been great!
While the creative writing contest is very visible, the vast majority of my time (as the main person trying to solicit more content for the Forum) goes towards helping people with serious work, and promoting said work.
I realize this may not speak to your point about uneasiness â Iâm just sharing it for some context on the Forumâs overall trajectory and what CEA is trying to do with it.
Thanks for voicing these concerns! Youâve articulated a not-uncommon point of view on how the Forum ought to be used, and one that we try to incorporate into our work alongside many other points of view.
Iâve heard some people express a desire for the Forum to look more like a peer-reviewed journal. Iâve heard even more express concerns in the opposite direction â that the site feels like it has a very high bar for engagement, and any content other than serious research seems suitable only for Facebook (many of those people are trying to use Facebook less or not at all).
Other people have told me that they just really enjoy creative writing, art, jokes, etc., and want the Forum to represent that side of EA culture. Sometimes, the creative work is a big part of what drew them to the movement in the first place.
I think that examples like âThe Fable of the Dragon-Tyrantâ show that more âcreativeâ EA content clearly has a place in the movement, and that weâd be better off with more stories of that quality. Hence, the writing contest.
Just as not all research on the Forum is as strong as e.g. that of Rethink Priorities, not all stories will be cultural touchstones that stand the test of time. Still, I think the gems are worth having a lot of rougher content show up.
The encouragement for people to share their work in public (rather than quietly submitting it through a form) is partly in response to feedback about the Forumâs âhigh barâ, and partly to encourage more representation for that side of EA culture. I want to encourage people to share their work and not worry as much about whether something âqualifiesâ to be here.
(Some of the Forumâs best posts have started with an author emailing me to say something like âI donât know if this is a good fit, but I figured I would checkâ. I donât know how many additional posts we miss because people give up without asking me.)
***
As for the Clickhole and meme posts â both of these happened as a result of my thinking about âEA artâ a bunch as I worked on the contest, but I understand that having everything appear back-to-back could create a sense of unease!
I donât expect this to be a rising trend past the time of the creative writing contest â this was just a chance for me to share a couple of things Iâd drafted or thought of long ago.
I think that humorous/âcreative posts have a place on the front page, which is explicitly about ârelatedness to EAâ rather than metrics of seriousness or âqualityâ. That said, the meme post now has negative karma notwithstanding my default vote, so people seem to agree that itâs not a good fit; Iâve moved it to personal blog given that feedback.
I still stand by the Clickhole post being a genuinely good piece on the importance of cause prioritization, and most people seemed to like it.
*****
Thanks for suggesting concrete actions! Here are my thoughts:
Are the Alignment Forum and LessWrong âpeer-reviewedâ in any sense that the Forum isnât? The former has limits on who can post in the first place, but that doesnât seem like the same thing. (I may be unaware of some peer-review policy on one or both sites, though.)
Weâve had some internal discussions about what the EA Forumâs equivalent(s) of the Alignment Forum might be, and itâs very possible that weâll eventually produce a space for curated research content. Weâre reaching the end of our current âForum yearâ (September 2020 - September 2021) and considering new initiatives we may launch for 2022; this is on the list of possibilities.
I like Facebook, but a lot of people really donât, and that site continues to be difficult to search, filter, etc. I think the Forum has useful features that people who like âfun contentâ should also be able to use.
More generally, we think of the Forumâs purpose as âthe center of EA discussion onlineâ. Not just research, but also community building, events, announcements, AMAs, short stories, and April Foolâs jokes. All of these things seem like they help communities grow and flourish.
That said, I understand the concern about whether it makes sense to have everything presented in a single feed. Thatâs why weâve been building up our tag infrastructure and encouraging people to use filters â rather than present everything to everyone, we think itâs better to let people choose what they want to see. But I donât think that has to mean separate websites.
Is this a better option than âshow this by default, and let people opt out of itâ?
Personal posts can literally be about anything, as long as they donât violate our rules. Humorous posts that arenât EA-related, or posts authors would prefer be less visible, are hidden by the default personal filter. Filtering out a subset of EA-related posts based on our assumption that most people donât want to see them seems like a bigger step.
For some context, hereâs a sample of what Iâve been working on recently for the Forum, outside of the creative writing contest:
Working to set up five new AMAs (uncertain how many will end up coming together) with serious thinkers
Presenting to the Stanford Existential Risk Initiative on the topic of âtaking your summer research project and posting it on the Forumâ, then helping lots of individual researchers (~10 so far) prepare to do so
Helping Holden Karnofsky crosspost his Cold Takes content to the Forum so that itâs available as soon as he publishes the blog versions
Continuing to help other people with content they submit for feedback (steady stream of 1-2 people per week)
Continuing to refine the Forumâs version of the EA Handbook (and serving as a facilitator for three live Virtual Program cohorts to get more input on how people experience the âofficialâ version of this material, which has helped me improve the Forum version)
Creating a PR FAQ for a new metrics feature that should inspire more sharing of âserious workâ by its authors, hopefully drawing more attention to it
Adding a lot more recent Forum content to CEAâs social media feeds, so that the best material (almost always serious work) reaches more readers. Weâd been on a social media hiatus until ~two months ago, but engagement since we returned has been great!
While the creative writing contest is very visible, the vast majority of my time (as the main person trying to solicit more content for the Forum) goes towards helping people with serious work, and promoting said work.
I realize this may not speak to your point about uneasiness â Iâm just sharing it for some context on the Forumâs overall trajectory and what CEA is trying to do with it.
I thought the Clickhole post was both funny, and a good illustration of how cause prioritization can be perceived by many people.