The Lurkshop is a workshop for people who are part of the online rationality community but haven't interacted with the in-person community yet. More details here.

On Feb 1st, I'll reflect on if the Lurkshop was a good idea/worth running. In particular, I'll think about if the reasoning/models/heuristics I used to decide on running the Lurkshop should not be significantly changed based on ways the Lurkshop failed to meet my expectations.

If the Lurkshop was a bet that I felt only had a 10% chance of being good to run again but was worth running because in a few worlds it was really really excellent, and sure enough after running it I decide it was not that good and I don't want to run it again, that will still count as a positive resolution if I think it was the right bet to make at the time. (Analogously, I might think it was a "good idea" to buy a lottery ticket if the lottery ticket was positive expected value, even if I lost the lottery and ex-post the decision looked bad. I would think it was a "bad idea" though if I'd done the math wrong and the lottery ticket was negative expected value, even if I'd won the lottery. I'm trying to point at something close to ex-ante, but of course if I truly thought it was a bad idea ex-ante I wouldn't run it at all.)

This market resolves positively if I concluded that watching the Lurkshop and aftermath play out make me want to keep the policies and algorithms and models that broadly caused me to think running something like the Lurkshop was a good idea, and negatively otherwise.