Scott presents Plan A, a detailed roadmap by Daniel Kokotajlo's AI Futures Project proposing a US-China regulatory agreement to safely advance AI to genius-level systems in the 2030s, solve alignment during a controlled pause, then achieve aligned superintelligence by 2040. Longer summary

Scott introduces Plan A, a detailed roadmap created by Daniel Kokotajlo and the AI Futures Project for navigating the AI transition safely. The plan envisions a trustless regulatory agreement between the US and China built on controlling chip supply and auditing data centers, followed by a 'golden mean' approach where both countries rapidly advance to top-human-genius-level AI while pausing before superintelligence. During this pause in the 2030s, billions of genius-level AIs would solve alignment and other major problems while being kept in controlled environments, eventually leading to fully aligned superintelligence around 2040 that helps chart humanity's future. The post frames this as offering a positive vision that satisfies both safety concerns and accelerationist goals through triple-digit GDP growth and rapid problem-solving. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander discusses various scenarios of AI takeover based on the Compute-Centric Framework, exploring gradual power shifts and potential conflicts between humans and AI factions. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores various scenarios of AI takeover based on the Compute-Centric Framework (CCF) report, which predicts a continuous but fast AI takeoff. He presents three main scenarios: a 'good ending' where AI remains aligned and beneficial, a scenario where AI is slightly misaligned but humans survive, and a more pessimistic scenario comparing human-AI relations to those between Native Americans and European settlers. The post also includes mini-scenarios discussing concepts like AutoGPT, AI amnesty, company factions, and attempts to halt AI progress. The scenarios differ from fast takeoff predictions, emphasizing gradual power shifts and potential factional conflicts between humans and various AI groups. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander summarizes and responds to comments on his review of 'What We Owe The Future', addressing debates around population ethics, longtermism, and moral philosophy. Longer summary

This post highlights key comments on Scott Alexander's review of William MacAskill's book 'What We Owe The Future'. It covers various reactions and debates around topics like the repugnant conclusion in population ethics, longtermism, moral philosophy, AI risk, and the nature of happiness and suffering. Scott responds to several comments, clarifying his views on philosophy, moral reasoning, and the challenges of population ethics. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander provides detailed predictions for the next five years on topics ranging from AI and politics to science and culture, with probability estimates for specific outcomes. Longer summary

Scott Alexander makes predictions for the next five years, covering a wide range of topics including AI, politics, culture wars, economics, technology, and science. He discusses potential developments in AI capabilities, European politics, global economic trends, religious shifts in the US, the future of US political parties, culture war dynamics, healthcare and economic divides, cryptocurrency, genetic research, space exploration, and global risks. The post is structured with general predictions followed by specific numbered predictions with probability estimates for each topic. Scott maintains a skeptical tone about dramatic changes, often predicting gradual shifts or continuations of current trends rather than radical transformations. Shorter summary

A satirical future op-ed argues that not giving children 'super-enhancement gene therapy' is child abuse, mirroring current pro-vaccination arguments. Longer summary

This satirical post, written as if from the future year 2065, critiques current anti-vaccination arguments by applying them to a hypothetical future technology: super-enhancement designer baby gene therapy. The author, posing as a bioethicist, argues that not giving children this therapy is child abuse and a public health issue. The post mimics common pro-vaccination arguments, citing increased crime rates, car accidents, and disease outbreaks as consequences of not enhancing children. It concludes by calling for severe restrictions on unenhanced children and punishment for parents who refuse the therapy. The satire aims to highlight the absurdity of current anti-vaccination arguments by applying similar logic to a more extreme scenario. Shorter summary