Scott Alexander's experiment tested how different essays affect people's concerns about AI risk, finding a modest but persistent increase in concern after reading. Longer summary

Scott Alexander conducted an experiment to test the effectiveness of different essays in persuading people about AI risk. Participants were assigned one of five essays to read, including a control essay unrelated to AI. The main outcome was participants' level of concern about AI risk on a 1-10 scale. Results showed that reading the AI-related essays increased concern by an average of 0.5 points, with no significant differences between the four AI essays. The effect persisted at about two-thirds strength after one month. The experiment also looked at secondary outcomes related to specific AI risk questions and analyzed differences based on prior familiarity with the topic. Overall, the study suggests a modest but useful effect from trying to persuade people through essays on this topic. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues against several popular Great Filter explanations, emphasizing that the true Filter must be more consistent and thorough than common x-risks or alien interventions. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques several popular explanations for the Great Filter theory, which attempts to explain the Fermi Paradox. He argues that common x-risks like global warming, nuclear war, or unfriendly AI are unlikely to be the Great Filter, as they wouldn't consistently prevent 999,999,999 out of a billion civilizations from becoming spacefaring. He also dismisses the ideas of transcendence or alien exterminators as the Filter. Scott emphasizes that the Great Filter must be extremely thorough and consistent to explain the lack of observable alien civilizations. Shorter summary