We're extending the Discussion Phase of the 2024 Annual Review.

One thing I'm particularly hoping for is to get more in-depth reviews (especially critical ones) of the posts that currently look likely to be in the top-10 or so. (Ideally the entire top 50, but seemed particularly worthwhile to give serious evaluations of the most heavily upvoted ideas).

Eyeballing the reviews and top posts so far, I think posts could use to get more thorough, evaluative attention than they're currently getting.

There's been some debate this year about whether we should care more about "what's great about a post" vs "what was lacking." Ideally, we'd have posts that are great without major flaws, and in my ideal world, the Annual Review results in posts with notable errors getting fixed.

In practice, people disagree about what counts as an error, or what errors are particularly egregious. Some errors are quick for an author to fix, some are more gnarly and maybe the author disagrees about the extent to which they are an error.

The solution we've found for now is to make reviews more prominent on Best Of LessWrong posts, and try to aim for a world where if [...]

The original text contained 2 footnotes which were omitted from this narration.

---

First published:
January 14th, 2026

Source:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PsQJxHDjHKFcFrPLD/deeper-reviews-for-the-top-15-of-the-2024-review

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

---

Images from the article:

Blog post header about enhancing adult intelligence through gene editing, by GeneSmith.

Table showing usernames with total counts and distribution of individual values across columns.

Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.

“Deeper Reviews for the top 15 (of the 2024 Review)” by Raemon

LessWrong (30+ Karma)