Scott Alexander argues that Plan A's proposed AI chip regulations are not a dystopian surveillance state, but rather comparable to existing regulations on controlled substances, and that most feared dystopian outcomes already exist in current banking and AI chat monitoring. Longer summary

Scott defends Plan A's AI chip regulation proposals against claims they would create an Orwellian surveillance state. He compares the proposed regulations (requiring factories, customers, and data centers to register and submit to inspections, plus cryptographic kill switches and transparency requirements) to existing regulations on controlled substances like Xanax, arguing they would simply make the AI chip industry more regulated without dystopian effects. He addresses specific concerns: consumer devices wouldn't need licenses (AI chips cost $40,000+ vs consumer hardware), open-weight models would be banned but replaced with open-algorithm requirements to prevent power concentration, and actual surveillance concerns are already worse in the status quo (banks monitor all transactions, OpenAI monitors chats). Scott argues the real costs are moving chip regulation from 50th to 95th percentile stringency, potentially taxing consumer hardware briefly, and banning new open-weight model training - substantial but not dystopian. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander responds to comments on his post about new telemedicine regulations, addressing various concerns and criticisms raised by readers. Longer summary

Scott Alexander summarizes and responds to various comments on his original post about new telemedicine regulations. He addresses concerns about drug addiction, debates the effectiveness of telemedicine compared to in-person care, discusses the issue of 'pill mills', clarifies his analogy about blind people accessing Braille, responds to criticism of his characterization of Christian doctors, examines which part of the government is responsible for the regulations, and looks at how other countries handle telemedicine prescriptions. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues against Gary Marcus's critique of AI scaling, discussing the potential for future AI capabilities and the nature of human intelligence. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to Gary Marcus's critique of AI scaling, arguing that current AI limitations don't necessarily prove statistical AI is a dead end. He discusses the scaling hypothesis, compares AI development to human cognitive development, and suggests that 'world-modeling' may emerge from pattern-matching abilities rather than being a distinct, hard-coded function. Alexander also considers the potential capabilities of future AI systems, even if they don't achieve human-like general intelligence. Shorter summary

Scott analyzes survey data to test the claim that rejection sensitivity is a key feature of ADHD, finding limited support and emphasizing caution in adopting such ideas without formal research. Longer summary

Scott Alexander investigates the claim that rejection-sensitive dysphoria is a key feature of ADHD using data from the Slate Star Codex survey. He finds that while people with ADHD do show slightly higher rejection sensitivity than those without psychiatric conditions, it's not as dramatic as some claim, and ADHD actually shows the lowest rejection sensitivity among the psychiatric conditions studied. The post critiques the lack of formal evidence for this claim, discusses potential Forer effects, and emphasizes the need for caution when adopting new ideas about psychiatric symptoms, especially those spread in patient communities without formal research backing. Shorter summary