I didn’t read the whole post either, just skimmed it enough it realise that it was confusing for me and that I’d probably wouldn’t really get the point you were making without reading it more than once.
I thought / I assumed that is the default state these days?
That’s why starting from the TLDR summary. I even explained why I use this style of writing—writing for the internet.
(the original post was in continous format, the pagination happens only when “save as PDF”)
The logic—if the summary is good enough then those interested in the content will skim it and maybe even read it. I also use headers so the table of contents is created, allowing to navigate to the relevant parts.
(from the time perspective it would be better to put the disclaimers and conflict of interest clauses towards the end, at the time I was thinking it provides a neat introduction and background)
For avoidance of the doubt—my intention is to highlight:
cultural issues
filter bubble
echo chamber
To reiterate:
initial feedback “too simple”—made it more detailed
subsequent feedback “too complex”—made it simpler
But then:
“I have an overall policy of not reading it in enough detail to make the call.”
“I concretely do not expect to approve a version of the current post as your first post.”
I guess it was a game over, but I tried anyway with posting in the open thread that got me banned.
I think I was expected to make a simpler post about somethign else to unlock my account, that would enable me to post the original thing?
Sounds overcomplicated. I didn’t have much interest in producing something random just to unlock my account, the AI alignment metric was the primary objective.
I’ve submitted the link to Hacker News(to faciliate comments) and some other AI adjacent communities because:
critical feedback
constructive criticism
meaningful discussion
crowdsourcing brainpower
figuring out fail scenarios
And until we figure out a better defintion / metric / alignment I suggest we stick to LIFE as a good starting point.
I didn’t read the whole post either, just skimmed it enough it realise that it was confusing for me and that I’d probably wouldn’t really get the point you were making without reading it more than once.
Funny that you mention that.
I thought / I assumed that is the default state these days?
That’s why starting from the TLDR summary. I even explained why I use this style of writing—writing for the internet.
(the original post was in continous format, the pagination happens only when “save as PDF”)
The logic—if the summary is good enough then those interested in the content will skim it and maybe even read it. I also use headers so the table of contents is created, allowing to navigate to the relevant parts.
(from the time perspective it would be better to put the disclaimers and conflict of interest clauses towards the end, at the time I was thinking it provides a neat introduction and background)
For avoidance of the doubt—my intention is to highlight:
cultural issues
filter bubble
echo chamber
To reiterate:
initial feedback “too simple”—made it more detailed
subsequent feedback “too complex”—made it simpler
But then:
“I have an overall policy of not reading it in enough detail to make the call.”
“I concretely do not expect to approve a version of the current post as your first post.”
I guess it was a game over, but I tried anyway with posting in the open thread that got me banned.
I think I was expected to make a simpler post about somethign else to unlock my account, that would enable me to post the original thing?
Sounds overcomplicated. I didn’t have much interest in producing something random just to unlock my account, the AI alignment metric was the primary objective.
I’ve submitted the link to Hacker News (to faciliate comments) and some other AI adjacent communities because:
critical feedback
constructive criticism
meaningful discussion
crowdsourcing brainpower
figuring out fail scenarios
And until we figure out a better defintion / metric / alignment I suggest we stick to LIFE as a good starting point.