@modsâit doesnât seem like tagging this as a community post is appropriate, and would lead to fewer people (whoâd probably want to see it) from seeing it.
It was tagged community by the author and, after a quick read, I agree with keeping the tag.
I agree that if the post was only about criticism of Karnofskyâs Most Important Century series, it definitely shouldnât be tagged community. But the post seems to me to be in large part about the âintellectual and critical standards within the EA/âLW/âAF ecosystemâ, especially (but not exclusively) in the concluding remarks.
I think that a post thatâs not entirely about biorisk, but significantly touches on biorisk, should be tagged biorisk, and that the same applies in this case about âcommunityâ.
I agree about your biorisk point. However, tagging community has the additional effect of greatly reducing visibility which is fine when the content is primarily about the community but not here where the community aspect is a collary to the main point critiquing a fundamental text in EA thinking.
It was tagged community by the author and, after a quick read, I agree with keeping the tag.
I agree that if the post was only about criticism of Karnofskyâs Most Important Century series, it definitely shouldnât be tagged community. But the post seems to me to be in large part about the âintellectual and critical standards within the EA/âLW/âAF ecosystemâ, especially (but not exclusively) in the concluding remarks.
I think that a post thatâs not entirely about biorisk, but significantly touches on biorisk, should be tagged biorisk, and that the same applies in this case about âcommunityâ.
I agree about your biorisk point. However, tagging community has the additional effect of greatly reducing visibility which is fine when the content is primarily about the community but not here where the community aspect is a collary to the main point critiquing a fundamental text in EA thinking.