jacobjacob

• jacobjacob 30 May 2019 9:50 UTC

  1 point

  in reply to: aarongertler's comment on: Build­ing a suc­cess­ful econ­omy for col­lab­o­ra­tive cog­ni­tive work with high externalities

  Thanks, that’s great to hear.

  The prize has been go­ing on for a while, which seems im­por­tant, and I think the trans­parency of the Prize post is re­ally im­por­tant for mak­ing com­mon knowl­edge of what kind of work there is de­mand for. So over­all it’s pretty great.

  The struc­ture of feed­back looks to me like: “here’s the ob­ject-level con­tent of the post, and here are 2-3 rea­sons we liked it”. I think you could be more clear about what you want to in­cen­tivise. More pre­cisely, the cur­rent struc­ture doesn’t an­swer:

  • How strong were the rea­sons rel­a­tive to each other? (e.g. maybe re­mov­ing Rea­son A would make the per­son win 2nd prize in­stead of 1st, but re­mov­ing Rea­son B might make them win no prize)

  • Were the rea­sons only jointly suffi­cient to merit the prize, or might ac­com­plish­ing only one of them have worked?

  • What other prop­er­ties did the post dis­play, which did not merit the prize? For ex­am­ple, maybe prize-mer­it­ing posts tend to be quite long—even though length is not some­thing you want to in­cen­tivise on the mar­gin.

  • Why did the posts end up or­dered the way they did? Beyond “the black-box vot­ing pro­cess gave that ver­dict” :) Cur­rently I don’t know why SHOW was judged as de­serv­ing 4x the prize money of “The Case for the Ho­tel”, for ex­am­ple.

Build­ing a suc­cess­ful econ­omy for col­lab­o­ra­tive cog­ni­tive work with high externalities

• jacobjacob 30 Jan 2019 14:23 UTC

  6 points

  on: Invit­ing EA fore­cast­ers to AI fore­cast­ing platform

  [Note: I dou­ble-checked with the mod­er­a­tors be­fore post­ing this to en­sure it was not too “mar­ket­ingy”.]

Invit­ing EA fore­cast­ers to AI fore­cast­ing platform

• jacobjacob 16 Mar 2017 13:47 UTC

  2 points

  in reply to: MichaelPlant's comment on: Oxford Pri­ori­ti­sa­tion Pro­ject: Ver­sion 0

  1. When I and Tom came up with that, I don’t think we meant “be­lief” to be im­bued with the usual philo­soph­i­cal con­no­ta­tions. Rather, we in­tended it to mean some­thing like “ac­tion-guid­ing, in­tro­spec­tively ac­cessible rep­re­sen­ta­tion of a state of af­fairs ex­ist­ing in­de­pen­dently of whether it is queried”.

  When peo­ple ask me what I think about the world, I can of­ten come up with lots of in­tel­li­gent sound­ing an­swers—but it is un­for­tu­nately more rare that my ac­tual ac­tions, plans and nor­ma­tive eval­u­a­tions are some­how suit­ably hooked up to, and cru­cially de­pend upon, those an­swers.