The choice of target (I think the contest is basically good and I don’t share most of your critiques, but it’s good that someone is red-teaming the red-teamers)
The reminder of how important copyediting is (I think that some of the things that bothered you, like the unnecessary “just”, would have been removed without complaint by some editors). I hope this does well in the contest!
Most of the items on your “framework” list have been critiqued and debated on the Forum before, and I expect that almost any of them could inspire top contenders in the contest (the ones that seem toughest are “effectiveness” and “scope sensitivity”, but that’s only because I can’t immediately picture — which isn’t the same thing as being impossible).
A few titles of imaginary pieces that clearly seem like the kind of thing the contest is looking for:
We Owe The Future Nothing (addressing “Obligation”)
EA Shouldn’t Be Trying To Grow (“Evangelicalism”)
EA Should Get Much Weirder (“Reputation”)
EA Is Way Too Centralized (“Coordination”)
We Need To Improve Existence Before We Worry About Existential Risk (“Existential Risk”)
Most Grants Should Be Performance-Based, Not Application-Based (“Bureaucracy”)
We Should Take Our Self-Professed Ideals More Seriously (“Grace”)
Flying To EA Global Does More Harm Than Eating Six Metric Tons Of Cheese (“Veganism”)
Question, if you have the time: What are titles for imaginary pieces that you think the criticism contest implicitly excludes, or would be very unlikely to reward based on the stated criteria?
As an aside, I’m now curious about how well Eliezer’s recent posts would have done in the contest — are those examples of content you’d expect to go unrewarded?
Upvoted for:
The interesting framework
The choice of target (I think the contest is basically good and I don’t share most of your critiques, but it’s good that someone is red-teaming the red-teamers)
The reminder of how important copyediting is (I think that some of the things that bothered you, like the unnecessary “just”, would have been removed without complaint by some editors). I hope this does well in the contest!
Most of the items on your “framework” list have been critiqued and debated on the Forum before, and I expect that almost any of them could inspire top contenders in the contest (the ones that seem toughest are “effectiveness” and “scope sensitivity”, but that’s only because I can’t immediately picture — which isn’t the same thing as being impossible).
A few titles of imaginary pieces that clearly seem like the kind of thing the contest is looking for:
We Owe The Future Nothing (addressing “Obligation”)
EA Shouldn’t Be Trying To Grow (“Evangelicalism”)
EA Should Get Much Weirder (“Reputation”)
EA Is Way Too Centralized (“Coordination”)
We Need To Improve Existence Before We Worry About Existential Risk (“Existential Risk”)
Most Grants Should Be Performance-Based, Not Application-Based (“Bureaucracy”)
We Should Take Our Self-Professed Ideals More Seriously (“Grace”)
Flying To EA Global Does More Harm Than Eating Six Metric Tons Of Cheese (“Veganism”)
Question, if you have the time: What are titles for imaginary pieces that you think the criticism contest implicitly excludes, or would be very unlikely to reward based on the stated criteria?
As an aside, I’m now curious about how well Eliezer’s recent posts would have done in the contest — are those examples of content you’d expect to go unrewarded?