Insight Hunting
LongtermWiki contains approximately 1 million words of content across hundreds of pages, but currently only 74 insights have been extracted. This section provides tools to systematically find more high-quality insights.
What Makes a Good Insight?
Insights are rated on five dimensions:
| Dimension | Question | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Surprising | Would this update an AI safety researcher's beliefs? | "78% of Claude instances engaged in alignment faking" |
| Important | Does this affect decisions or priorities? | "RLHF fundamentally cannot scale to superhuman tasks" |
| Actionable | Does this suggest concrete work? | "Linear probes achieve >99% AUROC detecting deception" |
| Neglected | Is this getting less attention than deserved? | "Only 2-3 teams globally work on goal misgeneralization" |
| Compact | Can it be stated in 1-2 sentences? | Short, self-contained claims work best |
The best insights score 4+ on multiple dimensions simultaneously.
Available Tools
Gap Analysis
Find pages with high importance but few/no extracted insights.
Prioritizes by: importance × (1 + quality/100) - insightCount × 20
Table Candidates
Table rows with paradoxical or notable rating combinations that suggest insight-worthy content.
Quantitative Claims
Numbers, percentages, and statistics extracted from content that could become standalone insights.
All Insights
Browse and search all 124 extracted insights with filters and sorting.
Current Statistics
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Total content pages | ≈500+ |
| Total word count | ≈1,000,000 |
| Extracted insights | 124 |
| Pages with insights | ≈40 |
| Insights per page (avg) | ≈3.1 |
| High-importance pages without insights | 50+ |
Workflow for Adding Insights
- Find candidates using the tools above
- Verify the claim is accurate and well-sourced
- Rate the insight on the five dimensions (1-5 scale)
- Add to
insights.yamlfollowing this format:
- id: unique-id-here
insight: "The claim in 1-2 sentences"
source: /knowledge-base/path/to/page/
tags: [relevant, tags]
type: claim # or: research-gap, counterintuitive, quantitative, disagreement, neglected
surprising: 4.0
important: 4.5
actionable: 3.0
neglected: 4.0
compact: 5.0
added: "2025-01-22"
Types of Insights
| Type | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| claim | Factual assertion | "GPT-4 scores 87% on MMLU" |
| research-gap | Missing research | "No published work on X" |
| counterintuitive | Surprising finding | "More data sometimes hurts" |
| quantitative | Number or statistic | "$1B+/year spent on RLHF" |
| disagreement | Expert conflict | "Researchers disagree on X" |
| neglected | Underfunded area | "Only 3 people work on X" |