Question about how judges would handle multiple versions of essays for this competition. (I think this contest is a great idea; I’m just trying to anticipate some practical issues that might arise.)
EA Forum has a ethos of people offering ideas, getting feedback and criticism, and updating their ideas iteratively. For purposes of this contest, how would the judges treat essays that are developed in multiple versions?
For example, suppose a researcher posts version 1.0 of an essay on EA Forum with the “Future Fund worldview prize” tag. They get a bunch of useful feedback from other EA Forum members, refine their arguments, revise their essay, and post version 2.0 on EA Forum a couple weeks later (also with the tag). And so forth… through version 5.0 (or whatever).
1. Which version of the essay would judges be evaluating—version 1.0, or version 5.0, or would they partly also be judging the extent to which the researcher really strengthened their argument through the feedback?
2. If version 1.0 had been published before this contest was announced (on Sept 23), and version 2.0 was published after that date, would version 2.0 be eligible?
3. This versioning issue might raise adverse incentives on forums - e.g. anyone developing their own competition entry might be incentivized to withhold praise or constructive feedback on someone else’s essay, to downvote it, and/or to attack it with unusually incisive or detailed criticism. Or, friends and allies of an essay’s author might be incentivized to lavish it with praise, upvote it, and counter-attack against any criticism.
4. This versioning issue might raise issues with credit assignment, prize money distribution, and potential resentments. For example, suppose a researcher’s version 1.0 gets really helpful feedback on a couple of key points from other forum members, and incorporates their ideas into version 2.0 (possibly crediting them in some way, but not adding them as co-authors). What happens if version 2.0 then wins a big prize? It seems like the author would keep the prize money, but the people who helped them strengthen it might not get any reward, and might feel aggrieved. (And, perhaps anticipating this effect, they might not offer the helpful feedback in the first place.)
I have no great suggestions for how to solve these issues, but I suspect other people might be wondering about them.
I guess the simplest solution would be to say: judges will only consider version 1.0 of any essay, so writers better make it as good as they can, before they get any feedback.
Question about how judges would handle multiple versions of essays for this competition. (I think this contest is a great idea; I’m just trying to anticipate some practical issues that might arise.)
EA Forum has a ethos of people offering ideas, getting feedback and criticism, and updating their ideas iteratively. For purposes of this contest, how would the judges treat essays that are developed in multiple versions?
For example, suppose a researcher posts version 1.0 of an essay on EA Forum with the “Future Fund worldview prize” tag. They get a bunch of useful feedback from other EA Forum members, refine their arguments, revise their essay, and post version 2.0 on EA Forum a couple weeks later (also with the tag). And so forth… through version 5.0 (or whatever).
1. Which version of the essay would judges be evaluating—version 1.0, or version 5.0, or would they partly also be judging the extent to which the researcher really strengthened their argument through the feedback?
2. If version 1.0 had been published before this contest was announced (on Sept 23), and version 2.0 was published after that date, would version 2.0 be eligible?
3. This versioning issue might raise adverse incentives on forums - e.g. anyone developing their own competition entry might be incentivized to withhold praise or constructive feedback on someone else’s essay, to downvote it, and/or to attack it with unusually incisive or detailed criticism. Or, friends and allies of an essay’s author might be incentivized to lavish it with praise, upvote it, and counter-attack against any criticism.
4. This versioning issue might raise issues with credit assignment, prize money distribution, and potential resentments. For example, suppose a researcher’s version 1.0 gets really helpful feedback on a couple of key points from other forum members, and incorporates their ideas into version 2.0 (possibly crediting them in some way, but not adding them as co-authors). What happens if version 2.0 then wins a big prize? It seems like the author would keep the prize money, but the people who helped them strengthen it might not get any reward, and might feel aggrieved. (And, perhaps anticipating this effect, they might not offer the helpful feedback in the first place.)
I have no great suggestions for how to solve these issues, but I suspect other people might be wondering about them.
I guess the simplest solution would be to say: judges will only consider version 1.0 of any essay, so writers better make it as good as they can, before they get any feedback.