Even if someone considers the impact of a post to be high, regardless of how much karma it has, it doesn’t necessarily mean much because that doesn’t discern the worth of the post.
“Impact” needs to be operationalized and it remains infeasible to achieve a consensus on how it should be operationalized. It might be possible in theory to achieve agreement on what counts as an objectively valuable post, though in practice the criteria anyone applies for judging the value of any posts might as well be completely arbitrary.
For example, if my preferred cause is shared as a top priority only by a small minority of the effective altruism community, like invertebrate suffering, every post about that cause will receive way less karma than most other posts. That doesn’t change the facts that:
I’ll consider the most valuable posts to be ones that have a below-average karma score among all posts.
the posts most effective altruists consider the most impactful may not matter to me much at all.
Once someone becomes a more independent-minded effective altruist, how much post a karma receives matters way less.
Even if someone considers the impact of a post to be high, regardless of how much karma it has, it doesn’t necessarily mean much because that doesn’t discern the worth of the post.
I would say there is a positive correlation between my subjective impression of how impactful the post is, and its worth from an impartial point of view.
“Impact” needs to be operationalized and it remains infeasible to achieve a consensus on how it should be operationalized
Impact has implicitly been operationalised as karma in the EA Forum, to the extent the posts with higher karma are more visible, and we want to make the more valuable posts more visible. Of course, this does not mean the current karma system is ideal!
For example, if my preferred cause is shared as a top priority only by a small minority of the effective altruism community, like invertebrate suffering, every post about that cause will receive way less karma than most other posts.
That is a good point. However, I think posts of less pressing causes having less karma is good, because that will imply more pressing causes will receive more attention and resources. Ideally, the karma would be attributed in such a way that the marginal karma point going to each post had roughly the same value. Easier said that done!
Once someone becomes a more independent-minded effective altruist, how much post a karma receives matters way less.
I agree the weight of our inside view tends to increase over time. On the other hand, I believe it is important to be humble, and recognise that, in expectation, posts with higher karma are more deserving of our attention. In any case, I guess the correlation is not strong, and karma is arguably not even one of the major factors we should keep in mind. The quality and topic of the post are the major ones to me (although they both correlate with karma).
Even if someone considers the impact of a post to be high, regardless of how much karma it has, it doesn’t necessarily mean much because that doesn’t discern the worth of the post.
“Impact” needs to be operationalized and it remains infeasible to achieve a consensus on how it should be operationalized. It might be possible in theory to achieve agreement on what counts as an objectively valuable post, though in practice the criteria anyone applies for judging the value of any posts might as well be completely arbitrary.
For example, if my preferred cause is shared as a top priority only by a small minority of the effective altruism community, like invertebrate suffering, every post about that cause will receive way less karma than most other posts. That doesn’t change the facts that:
I’ll consider the most valuable posts to be ones that have a below-average karma score among all posts.
the posts most effective altruists consider the most impactful may not matter to me much at all.
Once someone becomes a more independent-minded effective altruist, how much post a karma receives matters way less.
Thanks for engaging, Evan!
I would say there is a positive correlation between my subjective impression of how impactful the post is, and its worth from an impartial point of view.
Impact has implicitly been operationalised as karma in the EA Forum, to the extent the posts with higher karma are more visible, and we want to make the more valuable posts more visible. Of course, this does not mean the current karma system is ideal!
That is a good point. However, I think posts of less pressing causes having less karma is good, because that will imply more pressing causes will receive more attention and resources. Ideally, the karma would be attributed in such a way that the marginal karma point going to each post had roughly the same value. Easier said that done!
I agree the weight of our inside view tends to increase over time. On the other hand, I believe it is important to be humble, and recognise that, in expectation, posts with higher karma are more deserving of our attention. In any case, I guess the correlation is not strong, and karma is arguably not even one of the major factors we should keep in mind. The quality and topic of the post are the major ones to me (although they both correlate with karma).