I'm preregistering that I'm once again going to use the historically losing "write about something weird and try to split the vote" tactic, because it's rad. Last time roughly 80 people were mad at this; just wait until "Where the Red Fern Grows" Beats MacAskill's upcoming "Save the suit: Properly Valuing the Quanta of Dry Fabric against Undrowned Children."
As long as the text you produce is interesting or otherwise useful, why not? Besides, the other reviewers can do it as well, so the playing field is level
As a random person on the internet, it is hard for me to have a complete and unbiased opinion on what kinds of things this community should talk about. That said, I agree that this question adds a new perspective and will surely give us much to talk about in the years ahead. Whatever impact large language models have on the community, it is certain to spark discussion. In conclusion, I think we should continue to discuss this topic.
Using AI assistance in an essay writing contest without mentioning it is acceptable as the state of the art in AI has improved significantly. However, it's important to note that AI-generated essays still have a recognizable style that is distinct from human writing. This style may not align with the styles that people enjoy reading in essay contests, as AI writing lacks the nuance and individuality that comes with human writing. As such, it may not be as likely to win, but it can still be a useful tool for generating ideas and helping with the writing process.
Honestly, this kind of thing was funny the first one or three times. Now it's just spam. If I wanted chatGPTs "opinion" (I don't), then I would ask it directly.
As an AI language model, I don't have personal opinions or the ability to enforce rules. However, posting irrelevant or low-quality content is generally not acceptable in most online communities and can result in moderation actions such as a warning, temporary ban, or permanent ban depending on the severity of the violation and the discretion of the moderators.
I'm fine with people using AI. I don't think AI is good enough to win the contest on its own now in a way that counts as cheating, and if someone's found some way to fit it into their normal workflow that seems worth knowing about and celebrating.
I would prefer people appreciate that contest judge time is a limited resource, and not spam the contest with a bunch of AI generated entries.
I'm thinking about reviewing Blueprint by Robert Plomin and/or The Genetic Lottery by Kathryn Paige Harden. I tried to check that they had not been already reviewed the previous years, but I'm not quite sure. Maybe you could put out a list of past book reviews, both for inspiration and to avoid double reviewing? Thx
Last year ran way to long and overstayed its welcome. Can we at least do fewer of these? (I'm going off memory, it *may* have been an adversarial collaboration that dragged on and grated on me, but I think it was also the drawn out book reviews).
How about emulating the Eurovision? Two semifinals, where we vote on who goes through to the final, for a maximum of X finalists. Then the Grand Final itself!
I think I polled people and they thought it was fine. In any case, I don't replace posts I otherwise would have written with book reviews, just post them as extras. People who can avoid clicking on things they don't want to read aren't harmed.
I recall having that feeling early on, when it wasn't obvious to me which were guest-written reviews and which were Scott-written. But once he had figured out how to do the labeling in a way that made it clear, it was fine. (Though it did still seem long.)
Last time there were *a lot* of finalists, to the point I had completely forgotten about the first entries by the time the last entries were posted. Have you considered having fewer finalists this time?
+1. I also felt that the quality of finalist entries was a bit worse than 2 years ago.
I know it sucks to filter out high effort entries, and to a certain degree this is meant to be a community activity rather than a competition. But it's a law of the internet that there will always be more stuff to read than we can pay attention to. If there are more than a dozen finalists, I will just not read any of them, as the quality signal is too weak.
Two years ago I read every entry, and enjoyed them all. Last year there were too many to feel like I could do that, and therefore didn't enjoy the process.
I’m probably an outlier in terms of how fast I read and how much free time I have, but I read all of the entries last time (well, just skimmed a few of the less good ones) and then read all the finalists again. The majority of entries were at least interesting, and a significant percentage were really good!
I strongly recommend imposing an upper limit on the number of words. A 20,000 word novella is not the same artistic creation as a 2000 word review. Comparing them is unfair to both authors as well as to the readers, who might feel obliged to waste an unreasonable amount of time on a single entry before voting.
Seconding this. I *might* read a 20,000 word review from Scott or another author that I like. I'm not going to read hundreds of such lengthy reviews from unknown people on the internet. It kind of takes away the "competition" aspect when most of us aren't really reading more than a small slice of the entries. And I feel like a 20k "book review" is almost a contradiction- at that length, you might as well just read the book itself. If the idea is to encourage original research which is only loosely tied to a book, as the previous winners have been, that should be a separate category.
Better get my skates on if I want to submit a review. I have a book in mind, just have to read it first (unless I go the Sydney Smith route: "I never read a book before reviewing it; it prejudices a man so.")
Since the reviews will appear online: perhaps it can be explicitly allowed to have text with text color the same as background color in some places? I'm thinking of how to avoid spoilers.
Per last years rules, the answer was yes. And even if you are a finalist, you can post on your blog after the contest was over.
I would note two things - both years of contest, Scott has added additionally finalists at the end, so I wouldn’t necessarily post it on my blog until the end of the contest if I though I had a shot at getting picked. Second, there were a TON of submissions last year, and a lot of really good ones didn’t make it. Mine was a finalist last year, but if I remember right only about ten people rated mine. If just one person who rated mine highly had rated it low, I wouldn’t have made the contest.
Point being, don’t beat yourself if you don’t make it. Definitely doesn’t mean your review ‘bombed’.
i actually started my substack by serializing my book review from last year's contest, and i probably wouldn't have started one otherwise! interesting to think of the contest as a kind of ad-hoc incubator like that
Thank you, Jack and Partygirl, very appreciated. It's actually a review copy of the book, so I am reassured I can keep my promise to the publisher to give it some publicity.
So, if we want to include an image in the review, we need to make sure that it's in the Doc, in the correct spot, correct size, caption underneath etc?
Could someone please review something from Marx. I tried reading Capital and didn't get far; I think because his ideas are now so ubiquitous that nothing felt novel. But what I am missing is a holistic understanding of what say a 'Marxist interpretation' is.
Is it alright if the email address I use to submit the google doc has my name in it? Should I submit the google doc with a new anonymous email address just-in-case?
It's probably fine, hopefully he won't look at the email when in the Google Doc. You're using the "Anyone with the link can open" share method, and don't include the email in the Doc itself. Then he won't need to click "Sharing" or anything within the doc.
Scott, could you please let people know if their review has made the list of finalists or no? I saw that last year 105 reviews were published and 90 of those had to wait 5 months to find out. This would especially be nice for people who are waiting to cross-post the reviews on their own blog and can't without knowing if they're in the contest or not.
I submitted a book review before April 5th. I then went away on holiday for two weeks. I came back and opened my laptop and pressed one key on the google doc and deleted it straight away (the letter 'k'). This was saved on the google doc as a change/edit. I tried to 'undo the edit' that further saved that as a change too. I am unsure if you can see edits or if you have only the version I submitted on the day.
Will it show that I edited it and will I get automatically dismissed? I posted this anonymously and left no clue as to my submission date. I hope it is okay to be asking.
tbh a blog review contest would be appreciated.
I third this notion
As well as a ‘guest post’ contest
When I click on link (mobile) ...
“The form ACX Book Review Form 2023 is no longer accepting responses.
Try contacting the owner of the form if you think this is a mistake.”
Same thing here. Shows up the error message both on Substack and native safari app on iPhone.
Sorry, should be fixed now.
I'm preregistering that I'm once again going to use the historically losing "write about something weird and try to split the vote" tactic, because it's rad. Last time roughly 80 people were mad at this; just wait until "Where the Red Fern Grows" Beats MacAskill's upcoming "Save the suit: Properly Valuing the Quanta of Dry Fabric against Undrowned Children."
If you get some help from an AI to write the review, should you mention it?
I like this question. It's interesting, topical, and opens a whole new can of worms for this community.
What do people think?
As long as the text you produce is interesting or otherwise useful, why not? Besides, the other reviewers can do it as well, so the playing field is level
As a random person on the internet, it is hard for me to have a complete and unbiased opinion on what kinds of things this community should talk about. That said, I agree that this question adds a new perspective and will surely give us much to talk about in the years ahead. Whatever impact large language models have on the community, it is certain to spark discussion. In conclusion, I think we should continue to discuss this topic.
"Take this normal size review and make it 10000 words long"
This made me laugh - and *sincerely* hope that you are incorrect in this instance!
Using AI assistance in an essay writing contest without mentioning it is acceptable as the state of the art in AI has improved significantly. However, it's important to note that AI-generated essays still have a recognizable style that is distinct from human writing. This style may not align with the styles that people enjoy reading in essay contests, as AI writing lacks the nuance and individuality that comes with human writing. As such, it may not be as likely to win, but it can still be a useful tool for generating ideas and helping with the writing process.
it's an AI reply, right? genius!
Honestly, this kind of thing was funny the first one or three times. Now it's just spam. If I wanted chatGPTs "opinion" (I don't), then I would ask it directly.
Seconded that posting detectably milquetoast AI blather as a comment is spam, and further suggest it should be worth 25% of a ban
As an AI language model, I don't have personal opinions or the ability to enforce rules. However, posting irrelevant or low-quality content is generally not acceptable in most online communities and can result in moderation actions such as a warning, temporary ban, or permanent ban depending on the severity of the violation and the discretion of the moderators.
... sorry, I'll take my 25% of a ban now.
Sorry, for me in my innocence this was new:)
My comment wasn't directed at you at all. I guessed you hadn't run into it :)
thank you😊
No worries, nothing personal; it’s just become tiresome.
I'm fine with people using AI. I don't think AI is good enough to win the contest on its own now in a way that counts as cheating, and if someone's found some way to fit it into their normal workflow that seems worth knowing about and celebrating.
I would prefer people appreciate that contest judge time is a limited resource, and not spam the contest with a bunch of AI generated entries.
Thank you. The use case I have in mind is non native speaker needing to reformulate in a more idiomatic way.
Related: if you ask an AI to write a full book, can that be the basis of the book review?
I think it only adds value to mention it. Maybe under the review rather than up-front.
Can you submit a review you submitted somewhere else as well?
I would prefer people not do this - for one thing, it makes it hard to maintain blinding.
Hello Scott,
I'm thinking about reviewing Blueprint by Robert Plomin and/or The Genetic Lottery by Kathryn Paige Harden. I tried to check that they had not been already reviewed the previous years, but I'm not quite sure. Maybe you could put out a list of past book reviews, both for inspiration and to avoid double reviewing? Thx
A (searchable) list would definitely be very useful!
Last year ran way to long and overstayed its welcome. Can we at least do fewer of these? (I'm going off memory, it *may* have been an adversarial collaboration that dragged on and grated on me, but I think it was also the drawn out book reviews).
Strong disagree.
Hmm, we may have a strong community split here.
I doubt it’s going to be a big split. There were a lot of complaints about long, boring finalist entries.
Seconded, I recommend only posting the top 5-ish as blog entries and leaving the rest as a link post with one-line summaries.
How about emulating the Eurovision? Two semifinals, where we vote on who goes through to the final, for a maximum of X finalists. Then the Grand Final itself!
I think I polled people and they thought it was fine. In any case, I don't replace posts I otherwise would have written with book reviews, just post them as extras. People who can avoid clicking on things they don't want to read aren't harmed.
I recall having that feeling early on, when it wasn't obvious to me which were guest-written reviews and which were Scott-written. But once he had figured out how to do the labeling in a way that made it clear, it was fine. (Though it did still seem long.)
Thank you for doing this again! Does the book have to be a book, or can it be a long essay available in several collections and translations?
Last time there were *a lot* of finalists, to the point I had completely forgotten about the first entries by the time the last entries were posted. Have you considered having fewer finalists this time?
+1. I also felt that the quality of finalist entries was a bit worse than 2 years ago.
I know it sucks to filter out high effort entries, and to a certain degree this is meant to be a community activity rather than a competition. But it's a law of the internet that there will always be more stuff to read than we can pay attention to. If there are more than a dozen finalists, I will just not read any of them, as the quality signal is too weak.
Two years ago I read every entry, and enjoyed them all. Last year there were too many to feel like I could do that, and therefore didn't enjoy the process.
Oh I just stopped caring about reading them all. I think I read 80% of them, but a few I just lightly skimmed.
I’m probably an outlier in terms of how fast I read and how much free time I have, but I read all of the entries last time (well, just skimmed a few of the less good ones) and then read all the finalists again. The majority of entries were at least interesting, and a significant percentage were really good!
Ha! I started one last year, but never got around to finishing it. Perhaps I can find the time to finish it this year and submit it!
Hi Scott, is it okay if I publish the review on my own blog as a separate post (not mentioning ACT) or will that disqualify me?
Answer from https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-contest-rules-2023/comment/12434734 probably also applies here:
> I would prefer people not do this - for one thing, it makes it hard to maintain blinding.
I strongly recommend imposing an upper limit on the number of words. A 20,000 word novella is not the same artistic creation as a 2000 word review. Comparing them is unfair to both authors as well as to the readers, who might feel obliged to waste an unreasonable amount of time on a single entry before voting.
Well phooey, if we're all so weak-stomached we can't sit down to 20,000 words in one go, then okay I guess: a limit is not a bad idea 😀
Seconding this. I *might* read a 20,000 word review from Scott or another author that I like. I'm not going to read hundreds of such lengthy reviews from unknown people on the internet. It kind of takes away the "competition" aspect when most of us aren't really reading more than a small slice of the entries. And I feel like a 20k "book review" is almost a contradiction- at that length, you might as well just read the book itself. If the idea is to encourage original research which is only loosely tied to a book, as the previous winners have been, that should be a separate category.
Better get my skates on if I want to submit a review. I have a book in mind, just have to read it first (unless I go the Sydney Smith route: "I never read a book before reviewing it; it prejudices a man so.")
Given many complaints of too long, too many book reviews, maybe there should be a book review review contest, too?
Since the reviews will appear online: perhaps it can be explicitly allowed to have text with text color the same as background color in some places? I'm thinking of how to avoid spoilers.
If my review bombs and doesn't become a finalist, am I allowed to post it on a blog?
Per last years rules, the answer was yes. And even if you are a finalist, you can post on your blog after the contest was over.
I would note two things - both years of contest, Scott has added additionally finalists at the end, so I wouldn’t necessarily post it on my blog until the end of the contest if I though I had a shot at getting picked. Second, there were a TON of submissions last year, and a lot of really good ones didn’t make it. Mine was a finalist last year, but if I remember right only about ten people rated mine. If just one person who rated mine highly had rated it low, I wouldn’t have made the contest.
Point being, don’t beat yourself if you don’t make it. Definitely doesn’t mean your review ‘bombed’.
i actually started my substack by serializing my book review from last year's contest, and i probably wouldn't have started one otherwise! interesting to think of the contest as a kind of ad-hoc incubator like that
Thank you, Jack and Partygirl, very appreciated. It's actually a review copy of the book, so I am reassured I can keep my promise to the publisher to give it some publicity.
Nice, the ACT book review series is one of my favorite things on the internet. Looking forward to this.
So, if we want to include an image in the review, we need to make sure that it's in the Doc, in the correct spot, correct size, caption underneath etc?
I'm excited for this. If I find the time, which isn't likely over these next few months, I'll submit something.
Edit: Quick question, Scott. Can we review audiobooks? That obviously adds another dimension, the narration and/or performance. Up to you.
Review request:
Could someone please review something from Marx. I tried reading Capital and didn't get far; I think because his ideas are now so ubiquitous that nothing felt novel. But what I am missing is a holistic understanding of what say a 'Marxist interpretation' is.
Can you link two books in the review?
The same day NIH grants are due. That was true last year too.
For the book review contest, am I entitled to submit a review that I published in an academic journal but think would be of interest here?
Is it alright if the email address I use to submit the google doc has my name in it? Should I submit the google doc with a new anonymous email address just-in-case?
It's probably fine, hopefully he won't look at the email when in the Google Doc. You're using the "Anyone with the link can open" share method, and don't include the email in the Doc itself. Then he won't need to click "Sharing" or anything within the doc.
2 questions:
- Can we review fanfiction? (like rational fic)
- What time of day, on April 5th, is our submission due?
Scott, could you please let people know if their review has made the list of finalists or no? I saw that last year 105 reviews were published and 90 of those had to wait 5 months to find out. This would especially be nice for people who are waiting to cross-post the reviews on their own blog and can't without knowing if they're in the contest or not.
Hello,
I submitted a book review before April 5th. I then went away on holiday for two weeks. I came back and opened my laptop and pressed one key on the google doc and deleted it straight away (the letter 'k'). This was saved on the google doc as a change/edit. I tried to 'undo the edit' that further saved that as a change too. I am unsure if you can see edits or if you have only the version I submitted on the day.
Will it show that I edited it and will I get automatically dismissed? I posted this anonymously and left no clue as to my submission date. I hope it is okay to be asking.
Thanks