Linking to the Wikipedia pages for effective altruism, existential risk, etc. is unnecessary because almost all of your audience will be familiar with these terms.
For lots of your links, I had no problem understanding what you meant without reading the associated LW post.
You used a lot of LW jargon where you could have phrased things differently to avoid it: “dissolve the question”, “disguised queries”, “taboo”, “confidence levels outside of an argument”.
Lots of your links were tangential or just didn’t add anything to what you already said: “a wise outsider”, your three links for “save the world”, “the commonly used definition”, “you can arrive at true beliefs...”, “but they took the risk of riding...”, “useless sentiment”, “and it’s okay”.
I believe the following links were fine and you could leave them in: “mind-killed”, “eschatology”, “a common interest of many causes”, “you can see malaria evaporating”, “Against Malaria Foundation” (although I’d link to the website rather than the Wikipedia page), “Existential Strategy Research”. I’d remove all the others. Although you might want to remove some of these too—each of links to LessWrong posts on this list is fine on its own, but you probably don’t want to have more than one or two links to the same website/author in an article of this length. Hope that helps.
Specific examples:
Linking to the Wikipedia pages for effective altruism, existential risk, etc. is unnecessary because almost all of your audience will be familiar with these terms.
For lots of your links, I had no problem understanding what you meant without reading the associated LW post.
You used a lot of LW jargon where you could have phrased things differently to avoid it: “dissolve the question”, “disguised queries”, “taboo”, “confidence levels outside of an argument”.
Lots of your links were tangential or just didn’t add anything to what you already said: “a wise outsider”, your three links for “save the world”, “the commonly used definition”, “you can arrive at true beliefs...”, “but they took the risk of riding...”, “useless sentiment”, “and it’s okay”.
I believe the following links were fine and you could leave them in: “mind-killed”, “eschatology”, “a common interest of many causes”, “you can see malaria evaporating”, “Against Malaria Foundation” (although I’d link to the website rather than the Wikipedia page), “Existential Strategy Research”. I’d remove all the others. Although you might want to remove some of these too—each of links to LessWrong posts on this list is fine on its own, but you probably don’t want to have more than one or two links to the same website/author in an article of this length. Hope that helps.