If Alice funded you and Alice had a pet cause of X, I would find that information useful in evaluating your writeup of X.
However I wonder if this is due to the phrasing of "pet cause". If you get funding from the Gates Foundation and you recommend a global health intervention, I really don't think you need to put disclosures about that.
Which unfortunately leaves me without a principled distinction. In this case, with knowledge of the actors involved, I doubt it would affect your funding if you had/hadn't recommended these non-profits, so I don't feel like I would have needed the disclosure. But, yeah, unprincipled.
I really like Social Epistemology except for the crucial flaw that I haven't heard it called that before. Without the ability for people to recognize it, I think it's worse than Epistemic Humility. (Normally I'd prefer the more general term, rather than a term for one strategy within the space.)
Patient Philanthropy seems like the general category. Not all of it will be about the debate as to whether it's right, but it seems like a tag that encompasses questions like, "given that I want to give later, how do I do that" seems good.
A small update by comparison, and it's soon enough after this that I'll post it here:
The 'Forum Favorites' section is now part of a larger Recommendations section. There you'll be able to find your bookmarks, sequences you might want to continue reading, in addition to the Forum Favorites section as before. But unlike before, the posts are randomized, so you won't just see the same 3 posts every time.
I wish there was a community-led way of deciding about tags. I think LW is making the calls about their tag-classification that they've introduced. (See image.) So maybe it makes sense for us to be more opinionated.
The History tag is for posts that are strongly focused on historical events or trends which don't necessarily connect to other tags (e.g., a post on the history of nuclear weapons should go in that tag instead), or that discuss or make heavy use of historical research methods.
[Low confidence – I'm hashing out my own opinion in public, not trying to apply admin pressure]
I like the tags you've listed there. If you'd asked me to think about concepts in EA and written a (long) list, I'd hope I would have found those. I feel like Political Polarization is maybe more niche than I would do? There's a key difference between us and LW here, which is that LW is investing a large amount of time into creating a whole ontology out of their tagging system, and organizing thing hierarchically, which allows the highlighting of broader tags, while we can't match them in hours devoted if Aaron and I both worked on it full time.
Here's an EA Global talk on the subject. I find it uncompelling. It's extraordinarily expensive, and does little to protect against the X-risks I'm most concerned about, namely AI risk and engineered pandemics.
I would expect advanced AI systems to still be improveable in a way that humans are not. You might lose all ability to see inside the AI's thinking process, but you could still make hyperparameter tweaks. Humans you can also make hyperparameter tweaks, but unless your think AIs will take 20 years to train, it still seems easier than comparable human improvement.
I feel like this post wants to talk about organizing as a side project, but is better suited to professional community organizing. As a side project it could give connections and within-movement credentials that can be quite useful in other altruistic endeavors.
An important note about this is that the tag relevance feature is a special feature designed to counter the exact effect you describe. The way most tagging systems work, if you tag a very popular post with tag "Foo" then it will be shown first to people looking for Foo-related posts. But with our tagging system, users can say "this isn't very relevant" and it will stay with a low "tag relevance". See the Forecasting tag, and notice how the Forecasting newsletter comes above the LTF Fund grant post, despite being less popular overall.
So I'd say to be liberal with your application of tags and let the relevance system do the filtering.
What page are you on when you want this? Do you spend a lot of time reading Recent Discussion on the homepage? On posts the header goes away when you scroll down and the bottom bar never appears at all.
Some of this will appear with the new editor, which has collaborative editing features built in.
but the UX doesn't seem intuitive, otherwise I would have noticed already
I admire your confidence. There's a sense in which if an experienced user doesn't know about a feature, it isn't well designed. OTOH, I assign some probability you've forgotten what the new post dialogue looks like.
(This is something we haven't edited from LessWrong, so this is me speaking for why I agree with their call, not why I made it myself.) I'd say it's a little of both. I'd like to allow users to change it if it's important, but heavily discourage changes that lose continuity of user identification without much gain. If you have to talk to a human to do it, you're only going to do that if you think it's important. Maybe in the ideal case we'd do something like facebook, where they let you do it, but discourage you through multiple levels of "are you sure?" and "you won't be able to change your name again for x days". And/or we could implement moderator review. But we probably won't prioritize building these, as it seems like a lot of UI functionality that will be very rarely exercised, which is a recipe for bugs.
Our database provider provides backups automatically. I would be very surprised if they lost it. I think the largest remaining risk is that I accidentally issued a command to delete everything. In that worst case scenario, I'd be able to get one-off copies of the database that I've made at various points.
There's still a single point of failure at the level of my organization. If something (maybe a lawsuit? seems unlikely) were to force us to intentionally take the site down, you'd want to have backups outside of our control. For that you might want to see this question, which your comment may have prompted.
On the object level, the search title bug is fixed on staging and should be deployed soon. On the meta level, the contact us page is on the sidebar as well. You were correct that it reaches Aaron not me, but if it’s a technical problem it will quickly get forwarded to me. Aaron just clarified the page to say that emailing Aaron is a good way to get to me.
I agree it isn’t great. This was slated for a redesign, but then I deprioritized it. I should probably revisit what the right thing to do is. I’ve been meaning to randomize it, as Habryka mentioned. (I want it to not be randomized when you're logged out, which is why it’s like this. It’s supposed to be a way for newcomers to see the best of the Forum, so they don’t get lost in the weekly churn.) Maybe just randomizing it for logged-in users would be enough, but an option to hide it seems good, if more work.
It has. We no longer apply the same styling to h2 and h3. While you still can’t create h3s using the editor, you can paste in from google docs and they will appear correctly. Sorry for not mentioning this anywhere, it’s such an invisible change — I don’t know what I was thinking.
(Unfortunately, I will need to remake this change once the new editor ships. LessWrong does not want its posts to have more than 3 levels of headings [h1, h2 and bold text]. I don’t think that’s the right choice for the EA Forum, but sometimes their updates won’t be checked for compatibility with minor features of the Forum).
I also like this idea. In addition to the effect you describe, I think it could help your eyes track the conversation more easily. It would also add more color to the site. Here are some reasons why I currently think it’s a little too much work. First, it’s more work than it seems, because the current layout of these comments feels very unsuited for slapping in all but the tiniest of avatars. So we’d need to substantially update the comments UI as well as build the profile upload. Also it makes the experience of engaging in the comments nicer, but my current guess is most of the value comes from people writing good posts and more people reading them. I don’t see the strong causal pathway between pictures and more of that happening. — Having written that, if it caused authors to find the comment section friendlier, I could imagine them having a smaller barrier to posting. OTOH, I could imagine authors being more intimidated by the “oh crap these are real people” feeling. I’d be curious to hear thoughts from authors.
I didn't vote on it (nor do I think I should be voting on any comments in this thread), but I'd guess it has to do with the following: How do you tell edits for clarity from edits that change the meaning? You could imagine this getting heated on high stakes threads.
Adding a little bit to Max's comment. — When I count the number of our staff working on each section, I get ~half of staff focused on the external-facing goals. And that's on top of the business as usual work, which is largely external facing. I was one of the people pushing for more object level work this quarter, but my feeling of the distance between what it was and what I wanted it to be was not as high as it might seem from a simple count of the number of goals.
Which, to be clear, you had no way of knowing about, and you explicitly called out that it was weakly-held. ↩︎