Hide table of contents

TLDR:

When you publish a post, you might get comments. Some of them might be pointing you to additional resources or expressing gratitude for the post, while some might give constructive feedback and point out disagreements or errors. It can be nice to engage in a conversation to get to the bottom of the disagreement but, crucially: you don’t have to respond to every comment

Epistemic status (how much you should trust me): Engaging with the Forum is my job, and I ran this by a few people, who all agreed with the argument. One person was surprised that this was an issue. So I’m more confident than usual. 


Elaboration

Let’s say you’ve written a Forum post and finally gotten up the courage to publish it. You click the ‘Publish’ button, then anxiously avoid the Forum — but you occasionally check back in to glance at the karma count on your post.[1]

The Button

And then suddenly someone leaves a comment. Maybe they say: 

You write [...], but I don’t think this accounts for [...]. I think this means [...]. 

We encourage collective truth-seeking on the Forum, and sometimes that involves disagreements and criticism or pointing out errors. The commenter — as long as they’re civil[2] — is providing a service by disagreeing or giving you feedback.

As a result, it can sometimes feel like you’re obliged to respond to long or substantive comments. You might feel that since the commenter has put lots of effort into their comment, it’s rude not to respond. Or, especially if the comment is critical, it can feel like you’ve been publicly challenged, and if you don’t respond, you’ve ‘lost’. Or you might worry that if you don’t reply, you’ll look like a coward who can’t acknowledge their errors. 

These feelings are misguided. While it’s often helpful to engage in a conversation on the Forum and incorporate feedback into your posts,[3] it’s not always the best course of action, and this should not be an obligation or even a strong norm. 

Some reasons you may not want to respond to comments

  1. You find it emotionally draining or stressful to engage in the conversation
  2. Responding takes valuable time that you could be spending on something else
  3. Keeping up with the conversation would distract you and harm your productivity
  4. You just don’t want to

Relatedly, there are some specific harms that arise from having a norm that people should always respond to comments

  1. People respond to comments too much and are unhappy, waste their time, or misuse their energy as a result
  2. People don’t post in the first place because they don’t want to have to respond to all the comments

None of this means that Forum readers shouldn’t comment on posts! I think commenting is great. Just don’t be upset if the original poster does not respond.

And of course, there are many reasons for responding to comments — you just shouldn’t feel like you have to.

Conclusion & message

If you ever needed someone with some semblance of authority to tell you that it’s ok to leave comments unanswered — consider this your message of permission. Someone I know even struck a bargain with their partner, agreeing that they will pay a fine if they respond to any comment on their forum post within the first week. That doesn’t seem like a bad idea. 

If you don’t want to engage with comments but feel awkward saying nothing, you can also share a link to this post and leave a comment response that just reads: 

Thank you for your comment. I appreciate it, but will not engage further.

Thanks to those who prompted this post and gave feedback on it!
 

  1. ^

    Beware over-identification with karma! Karma can be determined by tons of random things — from the time you posted to what else is going on or what’s in vogue on the Forum that week — and doesn’t track true impact very well. Plus, this all can feed into impostor syndrome

    Also, as a reminder: you can change how you get karma notifications (or even disable them entirely). Go to your account settings (hover over your username, find “Account Settings”), and then find the “Notifications” section and change “Vote Notifications” appropriately. I’ve left mine at the default — notifications once per day, and no notifications for negative karma.

  2. ^

    If you get rude comments, please feel free to report them.

  3. ^

    The classic example is Hauke Hillebrandt’s [updated] Global development interventions are generally more effective than climate change interventions, which was initially titled “Climate change interventions are generally more effective than global development interventions” and was significantly updated after a discussion in the comments. I think it’s great.

    Another great (and more recent example): I was looking through the wrong end of the telescope.

Comments17


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

I think this post is literally correct -- I don't think there should be a strong norm of responding to every comment. 

But ... I kind of think there should be a norm of trying to respond to substantive comments (where it's OK not to do it, but that's an "OK not to always meet the norm when it's not convenient", not "there isn't even a norm here"). I don't think post authors are just in the same position of "it's nice to respond to things" as everyone else. I guess I think of it as analogous to giving a talk and not taking questions ... sure, sometimes it's the right call (and I'm supportive if someone really isn't up for taking questions), but it's really nice to try to clear some space for it if you can. And I worry that it's easy to read this post as having the implicature of "just don't bother responding if you don't feel like it".

This matters to me because I think we're collectively into truth-seeking about important topics, and I think that often some of the best content comes in back-and-forths where people are arguing about detailed points. I worry that a culture where people are encouraged to not respond to comments and go write their next post instead leads to more talking past each other, less accountability, and ultimately less grounding of our culture and our knowledge.

e.g. say I make a post arguing X, and someone else asks a pointed question in the comments. If I don't respond and this is fully socially endorsed it might be easy for readers to think "oh I'm sure Owen was just busy but he has a good response". But then if I don't have a good answer to the point it may be hard for the pointed question to get the social impact that it deserves, unless someone takes the time/effort to write up enough context that it can be a top-level post and rise to prominence itself.

(I don't think responses to substantive comments always need to be substantive to be helpful. I think it's great to just share "good point", or "hmm, yeah, I want to think more about that", or "I've never found this kind of argument compelling although I can't put my finger on exactly why" if that's where you're at.)

It's really nice when people engage with comments, especially with useful comments, but I worry by making it into a norm we're losing more than we gain as a community. Will MacAskill for example has mentioned a couple of times that he finds posting on the Forum really uncomfortable because of the comments, and in his last post explicitly said that he wouldn't respond to any comments. In other situations, people might have to decide between writing a second post about a different topic and responding to the comments on their first post.

I agree with you that responding to comments can be really valuable - even just responding to the one or two best comments! - but I can see a lot of situations where it doesn't end up being the best use of someone's time or mental health.

I totally agree that there are some times when it's correct for people not to respond. But overall I think it's pretty clearly good to have some norm for the reasons above. Because I think that a lot of good things come out of getting to the bottom of stuff, I'd typically prefer that people posted half as many things if it meant they'd engage properly with comments on those things. I really worry that with no norm here we might lose something important about EA culture.

I think the ideal equilibrium should incur both some pain from less-response-than-we-might-hope and some pain from people-feeling-obliged-to-respond. I think maybe we're actually doing about right at that at the moment, on average? But I think it would better if everyone felt a bit of obligation to respond and nobody felt an overwhelming obligation to respond (and I guess right now it's more like some people feel it as overwhelming and some don't feel it at all).

I think it's plausible that the norm is overall a bit too strong or a bit too weak at the moment. I feel pretty bad about "no norm" though.

Epistemic status (how much you should trust me):

I applaud the intention in this, and would like to encourage everyone on the forum to either explain jargon like this, or drop it altogether and leave just the clear-English part.

Edit: I specifically suggest "how much I'm sure of this:".

But 'epistemic status' and 'trustworthiness' are not the same thing! A well written investigation into a very speculative area that adequately explained its uncertainty could have weak epistemic status but be very trustworthy; an dogmatic piece of rhetoric could be written by a zealot whose epistemic status was one of complete confidence, but for whom third parties should not trust at all. 

In a shallow search, I haven't managed to find a definition for "epistemic status". Could you define it?

The impression I've gotten over my time on the forum is that authors use it to indicate to the readers how much thought, research etc. has gone into the post, in order to inform their credibility assesments of its contents.

I am shocked that the first good definition I found is on Urban Dictionary: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Epistemic%20Status

The epistemic status is a short disclaimer at the top of a post that explains how confident the author is in the contents of the post, how much reputation the author is willing to stake on it, what sorts of tests the thesis has passed.

This seems like "how much I'm sure of this" then, isn't it?

Yes, I agree that's very close

Agreed. The trend of writing "Epistemic status" as one of the first things in a post without a definition or explanation (kudos to Lizka for including one) has bothered me for some time. It immediately and unnecessarily alienates readers by making them feel like they need to be familiar with the esoteric word "epistemic", which usually has nothing to do with the rest of the post.

Would be happy to see this frequent jargon replaced with something like "How much you should trust me", "Author confidence" or "Post status" (maybe there's a better phrase, just some examples that come to mind).

You click the ‘Publish’ button, then anxiously avoid the Forum — but you occasionally check back in to glance at the karma count on your post

What? How do you know? Are you following me?

Strong upvoted, I think this is an important norm to promote and was really clearly written. Thanks for posting!

[anonymous]7
0
0

If you don’t want to engage with comments but feel awkward saying nothing, you can also share a link to this post and leave a comment response that just reads: 

Thank you for your comment. I appreciate it, but will not engage further.

 

You can also add a similar note to the end of a post, e.g. "Note: I may not respond to all comments but at least intend to read them all."

I like this suggestion.  It seems a bit less pointed than responding non-responsively.

Agree, thanks for writing this up! 

I wonder if gentle nudges or reminders like this could be linked in the comment field default text (the one that says "Write here. Select text for formatting ... "). 

If you feel like there's not enough space to add that and you have to prioritise - I personally would find gentle nudges or reminders like this one more useful than knowing whether or not you support LaTeX. The commenting guidelines also seem like a good place, but they're only shown when writing an original comment and not when writing replies to other comments, so for this specific reminder, they wouldn't work. 

I saw this headline in the Digest and clicked over. The sincere question I have is: Is this forum many people's lives? That is fine -- why not -- but it does seem like quite a few people live here, commenting and then re-commenting.

Curated and popular this week
Ben_West🔸
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
> Summary: We propose measuring AI performance in terms of the length of tasks AI agents can complete. We show that this metric has been consistently exponentially increasing over the past 6 years, with a doubling time of around 7 months. Extrapolating this trend predicts that, in under a decade, we will see AI agents that can independently complete a large fraction of software tasks that currently take humans days or weeks. > > The length of tasks (measured by how long they take human professionals) that generalist frontier model agents can complete autonomously with 50% reliability has been doubling approximately every 7 months for the last 6 years. The shaded region represents 95% CI calculated by hierarchical bootstrap over task families, tasks, and task attempts. > > Full paper | Github repo Blogpost; tweet thread. 
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
For immediate release: April 1, 2025 OXFORD, UK — The Centre for Effective Altruism (CEA) announced today that it will no longer identify as an "Effective Altruism" organization.  "After careful consideration, we've determined that the most effective way to have a positive impact is to deny any association with Effective Altruism," said a CEA spokesperson. "Our mission remains unchanged: to use reason and evidence to do the most good. Which coincidentally was the definition of EA." The announcement mirrors a pattern of other organizations that have grown with EA support and frameworks and eventually distanced themselves from EA. CEA's statement clarified that it will continue to use the same methodologies, maintain the same team, and pursue identical goals. "We've found that not being associated with the movement we have spent years building gives us more flexibility to do exactly what we were already doing, just with better PR," the spokesperson explained. "It's like keeping all the benefits of a community while refusing to contribute to its future development or taking responsibility for its challenges. Win-win!" In a related announcement, CEA revealed plans to rename its annual EA Global conference to "Coincidental Gathering of Like-Minded Individuals Who Mysteriously All Know Each Other But Definitely Aren't Part of Any Specific Movement Conference 2025." When asked about concerns that this trend might be pulling up the ladder for future projects that also might benefit from the infrastructure of the effective altruist community, the spokesperson adjusted their "I Heart Consequentialism" tie and replied, "Future projects? I'm sorry, but focusing on long-term movement building would be very EA of us, and as we've clearly established, we're not that anymore." Industry analysts predict that by 2026, the only entities still identifying as "EA" will be three post-rationalist bloggers, a Discord server full of undergraduate philosophy majors, and one person at
Thomas Kwa
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
Epistemic status: highly certain, or something The Spending What We Must 💸11% pledge  In short: Members pledge to spend at least 11% of their income on effectively increasing their own productivity. This pledge is likely higher-impact for most people than the Giving What We Can 🔸10% Pledge, and we also think the name accurately reflects the non-supererogatory moral beliefs of many in the EA community. Example Charlie is a software engineer for the Centre for Effective Future Research. Since Charlie has taken the SWWM 💸11% pledge, rather than splurge on a vacation, they decide to buy an expensive noise-canceling headset before their next EAG, allowing them to get slightly more sleep and have 104 one-on-one meetings instead of just 101. In one of the extra three meetings, they chat with Diana, who is starting an AI-for-worrying-about-AI company, and decide to become a cofounder. The company becomes wildly successful, and Charlie's equity share allows them to further increase their productivity to the point of diminishing marginal returns, then donate $50 billion to SWWM. The 💸💸💸 Badge If you've taken the SWWM 💸11% Pledge, we'd appreciate if you could add three 💸💸💸 "stacks of money with wings" emoji to your social media profiles. We chose three emoji because we think the 💸11% Pledge will be about 3x more effective than the 🔸10% pledge (see FAQ), and EAs should be scope sensitive.  FAQ Is the pledge legally binding? We highly recommend signing the legal contract, as it will allow you to sue yourself in case of delinquency. What do you mean by effectively increasing productivity? Some interventions are especially good at transforming self-donations into productivity, and have a strong evidence base. In particular:  * Offloading non-work duties like dates and calling your mother to personal assistants * Running many emulated copies of oneself (likely available soon) * Amphetamines I'm an AI system. Can I take the 💸11% pledge? We encourage A
Recent opportunities in Building effective altruism
47
Ivan Burduk
· · 2m read