Thanks for voicing these concerns! You’ve 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.
I’ve heard some people express a desire for the Forum to look more like a peer-reviewed journal. I’ve heard even more express concerns in the opposite direction — 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 “The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant” show that more “creative” EA content clearly has a place in the movement, and that we’d 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 Forum’s “high bar”, 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 “qualifies” to be here.
(Some of the Forum’s best posts have started with an author emailing me to say something like “I don’t know if this is a good fit, but I figured I would check”. I don’t know how many additional posts we miss because people give up without asking me.)
***
As for the Clickhole and meme posts — both of these happened as a result of my thinking about “EA art” 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 don’t expect this to be a rising trend past the time of the creative writing contest — this was just a chance for me to share a couple of things I’d drafted or thought of long ago.
I think that humorous/creative posts have a place on the front page, which is explicitly about “relatedness to EA” rather than metrics of seriousness or “quality”. That said, the meme post now has negative karma notwithstanding my default vote, so people seem to agree that it’s not a good fit; I’ve 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/thoughtful content. An interface like the Alignment Forum / LessWrong would work well for this.
Are the Alignment Forum and LessWrong “peer-reviewed” in any sense that the Forum isn’t? The former has limits on who can post in the first place, but that doesn’t seem like the same thing. (I may be unaware of some peer-review policy on one or both sites, though.)
We’ve had some internal discussions about what the EA Forum’s equivalent(s) of the Alignment Forum might be, and it’s very possible that we’ll eventually produce a space for curated research content. We’re reaching the end of our current “Forum year” (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 don’t, and that site continues to be difficult to search, filter, etc. I think the Forum has useful features that people who like “fun content” should also be able to use.
More generally, we think of the Forum’s purpose as “the center of EA discussion online”. Not just research, but also community building, events, announcements, AMAs, short stories, and April Fool’s 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. That’s why we’ve been building up our tag infrastructure and encouraging people to use filters — rather than present everything to everyone, we think it’s better to let people choose what they want to see. But I don’t 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 “show this by default, and let people opt out of it”?
Personal posts can literally be about anything, as long as they don’t violate our rules. Humorous posts that aren’t 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 don’t want to see them seems like a bigger step.
For some context, here’s a sample of what I’ve 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 “taking your summer research project and posting it on the Forum”, 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 it’s 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 Forum’s 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 “official” 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 “serious work” by its authors, hopefully drawing more attention to it
Adding a lot more recent Forum content to CEA’s social media feeds, so that the best material (almost always serious work) reaches more readers. We’d 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 — I’m just sharing it for some context on the Forum’s overall trajectory and what CEA is trying to do with it.
Thanks for voicing these concerns! You’ve 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.
I’ve heard some people express a desire for the Forum to look more like a peer-reviewed journal. I’ve heard even more express concerns in the opposite direction — 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 “The Fable of the Dragon-Tyrant” show that more “creative” EA content clearly has a place in the movement, and that we’d 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 Forum’s “high bar”, 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 “qualifies” to be here.
(Some of the Forum’s best posts have started with an author emailing me to say something like “I don’t know if this is a good fit, but I figured I would check”. I don’t know how many additional posts we miss because people give up without asking me.)
***
As for the Clickhole and meme posts — both of these happened as a result of my thinking about “EA art” 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 don’t expect this to be a rising trend past the time of the creative writing contest — this was just a chance for me to share a couple of things I’d drafted or thought of long ago.
I think that humorous/creative posts have a place on the front page, which is explicitly about “relatedness to EA” rather than metrics of seriousness or “quality”. That said, the meme post now has negative karma notwithstanding my default vote, so people seem to agree that it’s not a good fit; I’ve 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 “peer-reviewed” in any sense that the Forum isn’t? The former has limits on who can post in the first place, but that doesn’t seem like the same thing. (I may be unaware of some peer-review policy on one or both sites, though.)
We’ve had some internal discussions about what the EA Forum’s equivalent(s) of the Alignment Forum might be, and it’s very possible that we’ll eventually produce a space for curated research content. We’re reaching the end of our current “Forum year” (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 don’t, and that site continues to be difficult to search, filter, etc. I think the Forum has useful features that people who like “fun content” should also be able to use.
More generally, we think of the Forum’s purpose as “the center of EA discussion online”. Not just research, but also community building, events, announcements, AMAs, short stories, and April Fool’s 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. That’s why we’ve been building up our tag infrastructure and encouraging people to use filters — rather than present everything to everyone, we think it’s better to let people choose what they want to see. But I don’t think that has to mean separate websites.
Is this a better option than “show this by default, and let people opt out of it”?
Personal posts can literally be about anything, as long as they don’t violate our rules. Humorous posts that aren’t 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 don’t want to see them seems like a bigger step.
For some context, here’s a sample of what I’ve 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 “taking your summer research project and posting it on the Forum”, 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 it’s 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 Forum’s 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 “official” 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 “serious work” by its authors, hopefully drawing more attention to it
Adding a lot more recent Forum content to CEA’s social media feeds, so that the best material (almost always serious work) reaches more readers. We’d 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 — I’m just sharing it for some context on the Forum’s 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.