Scott explores what constitutes a deontological bar (hard moral rule) by examining when consequentialist reasoning should be constrained, using debates within AI safety about working with AI companies versus pursuing regulation as his main examples. Longer summary

Scott examines the concept of deontological bars - hard moral rules that shouldn't be broken even for good consequences - and tries to develop a framework for determining what counts as such a rule. He starts with the classic example of not assassinating leaders, then explores various formulations like 'act as if your maxim would become a general law' and 'don't defect from functioning norms,' testing them against cases like military disarmament and spreading misinformation. The post is motivated by debates in AI safety between those working with AI companies and those pursuing pause/ban regulations, with each side suspecting the other might be violating deontological bars. Scott proposes that the rule might be 'don't do something which would be bad if universalized, unless the norm is non-functioning in such a way that you'd be playing cooperate while your enemy plays defect,' though he acknowledges this requires interpretive work and common sense to apply. Shorter summary

A satirical dialogue showing how opponents of AI pause proposals often ignore that advocates explicitly call for bilateral agreements with China, not unilateral pauses. Longer summary

Scott presents a satirical dialogue between a supporter and opponent of AI pause proposals, where the opponent repeatedly ignores the supporter's explicit statements about wanting a bilateral agreement with China and keeps attacking a strawman position of 'unilateral pause.' The supporter patiently explains multiple aspects of pause proposals - including bilateral negotiations, enforcement mechanisms, economic considerations, and quotes from actual pause advocates like Eliezer Yudkowsky and David Krueger - but the opponent continues to repeat the same mischaracterization throughout the entire exchange. Shorter summary

Scott explains why Ajeya Cotra's influential 'Biological Anchors' report correctly predicted the AI scaling boom but got AGI timelines wrong by twenty years, due to severely underestimating the rate of algorithmic progress. Longer summary

Scott analyzes why Ajeya Cotra's landmark 2020 'Biological Anchors' report predicted AGI around 2050, when current estimates now center on the late 2020s to 2040s. The report correctly predicted the scaling hypothesis and AI boom, but underestimated one crucial parameter: algorithmic progress was actually 200% per year instead of the predicted 30%. This single error, compounded across exponential growth, threw off the entire timeline by about twenty years. Scott examines various contemporary critiques of the report, finding that most concerns about the methodology were actually non-issues, while one throwaway concern (about algorithmic progress estimates being poorly researched) turned out to be the fatal flaw. He concludes this demonstrates both the power and limitations of probabilistic forecasting. Shorter summary

Scott argues that worrying about escaping a "permanent underclass" after AI is misguided, and that instead people should focus on the real opportunity: making meaningful contributions during this pivotal moment in history that will be remembered by future civilizations forever. Longer summary

Scott argues that the "permanent underclass" meme is misguided fearmongering targeting well-off Silicon Valley people worried about not becoming oligarchs after AI. He contends that even in the unlikely scenario where this happens, they'll still be fine (citing Dario Amodei's charitable pledges), and that worrying about wealth accumulation misses the real opportunity: we're living at a pivotal moment in history that will be studied forever. Drawing parallels to figures like St. Veronica (remembered for giving Jesus a washcloth), Scott suggests that random acts and contributions during crucial historical moments are remembered far longer than wealth. He encourages readers to focus on making meaningful contributions - through discourse, art, charity, or discovery - rather than obsessing over becoming ultra-wealthy, as future galactic civilizations will remember those who participated meaningfully in this "hinge of history" moment. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander presents 51 links covering AI progress and safety, political developments, scientific research, cultural oddities, and ongoing philosophical debates about miracles and education reform. Longer summary

Scott Alexander shares 51 links covering diverse topics including AI developments (agents, safety, consciousness research), political news (Ukraine policy, UK politics, Trump administration), science updates (climate predictions, genetics, bacteriophages), cultural curiosities (Shakespeare superfan plastic surgery, Soviet naming conventions, flag cones), health research (Alzheimer's prevention, shingles vaccine reducing dementia, kidney donation), and philosophical debates (Hume's argument against miracles, the Fatima miracle discussion). The post maintains Scott's characteristic blend of serious analysis and quirky observations, touching on everything from Bach's descendants in Oklahoma to the mystery of why AI still struggles with laundry folding despite mastering protein folding. Shorter summary

Scott reviews a new book by Yudkowsky and Soares that makes an uncompromising case for halting AI development to prevent human extinction, analyzing both its arguments and its potential impact as a call to action. Longer summary

Scott reviews Eliezer Yudkowsky and Nate Soares' upcoming book 'If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies' about AI safety. The book makes an uncompromising case that AI development will likely lead to human extinction and should be halted immediately through an international treaty and arms control regime. Scott analyzes both the book's arguments and writing style, finding the core message compelling but questioning some of the specific scenarios presented. He reflects on why many people reject existential AI risk warnings using similar dismissive patterns seen with other potential catastrophic risks. Shorter summary

Scott argues that philosophical zombies (beings without consciousness) would still report having qualia and conscious experiences, challenging a key argument in the p-zombie debate. Longer summary

Scott Alexander challenges a core argument in the philosophical zombie debate by suggesting that p-zombies (beings without consciousness) would still report having qualia and conscious experiences, just like humans do. He walks through how p-zombies would process and describe visual information, showing that they would need to use language similar to how we describe conscious experience. The post explores the implications of this for various philosophical positions on consciousness, though it acknowledges remaining difficulties in explaining subjective experience. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explains and analyzes the debate between MIRI and CHAI on AI alignment strategies, focusing on the challenges and potential flaws in CHAI's 'assistance games' approach. Longer summary

This post discusses the debate between MIRI and CHAI regarding AI alignment strategies, focusing on CHAI's 'assistance games' approach and MIRI's critique of it. The author explains the concepts of sovereign and corrigible AI, inverse reinforcement learning, and the challenges in implementing these ideas in modern AI systems. The post concludes with a brief exchange between Eliezer Yudkowsky (MIRI) and Stuart Russell (CHAI), highlighting their differing perspectives on the feasibility and potential pitfalls of the assistance games approach. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines the use of absurdity arguments, reflecting on his critique of Neom and offering strategies to balance absurdity heuristics with careful reasoning. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reflects on his previous post mocking the Neom project, considering whether his use of the absurdity heuristic was justified. He explores the challenges of relying on absurdity arguments, acknowledging that everything ultimately bottoms out in such arguments. The post discusses when it's appropriate to use absurdity heuristics in communication and personal reasoning, and offers strategies for avoiding absurdity bias. These include calibration training, social epistemology, occasional deep dives into fact-checking, and examining why beliefs come to our attention. Scott concludes that while there's no perfect solution, these approaches can help balance the use of absurdity arguments with more rigorous thinking. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander summarizes a debate between Yudkowsky and Christiano on whether AI progress will be gradual or sudden, exploring their key arguments and implications. Longer summary

This post summarizes a debate between Eliezer Yudkowsky and Paul Christiano on AI takeoff speeds. Christiano argues for a gradual takeoff where AI capabilities increase smoothly, while Yudkowsky predicts a sudden, discontinuous jump to superintelligence. The post explores their key arguments, including historical analogies, the nature of intelligence and recursive self-improvement, and how to measure AI progress. It concludes that while forecasters slightly favor Christiano's view, both scenarios present significant risks that are worth preparing for. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines various interpretations of rationality, concluding it might be best understood as 'the study of study' - a meta-level examination of truth-seeking methods. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores different interpretations of rationality and the debate between rationalists and anti-rationalists. He examines rationality as full computation vs. heuristics, explicit computation vs. intuition, and Yudkowsky's definition of 'systematized winning'. The post concludes by suggesting rationality might be best understood as 'the study of study' - a meta-level examination of truth-seeking methods. This perspective explains why rationality is often associated with explicit calculation, despite the importance of intuition and heuristics in practical decision-making. The post argues that while intuitive methods may often be effective, the formal study of rationality allows for replication, scaling, and innovation in ways that intuition alone cannot. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander reviews competing methodologies for predicting AI timelines, focusing on Ajeya Cotra's biological anchors approach and Eliezer Yudkowsky's critique. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reviews Ajeya Cotra's report on AI timelines for Open Philanthropy, which uses biological anchors to estimate when transformative AI might arrive, and Eliezer Yudkowsky's critique of this methodology. The post explains Cotra's approach, Yudkowsky's objections, and various responses, ultimately concluding that while the report may not significantly change existing beliefs, the debate highlights important considerations in AI forecasting. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander reviews a dialogue between Yudkowsky and Ngo on AI alignment difficulty, exploring the challenges of creating safe superintelligent AI. Longer summary

This post reviews a dialogue between Eliezer Yudkowsky and Richard Ngo on AI alignment difficulty. Both accept that superintelligent AI is coming soon and could potentially destroy the world if not properly aligned. They discuss the feasibility of creating 'tool AIs' that can perform specific tasks without becoming dangerous agents. Yudkowsky argues that even seemingly safe AI designs could easily become dangerous agents, while Ngo is more optimistic about potential safeguards. The post also touches on how biological brains make decisions, and the author's thoughts on the conceptual nature of the discussion. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander discusses and responds to comments on his article about the effects of missing school, exploring various perspectives and reflecting on education's value and impact. Longer summary

This post discusses the comments on Scott Alexander's previous article about the effects of missing school on children's education. It covers various perspectives, including personal anecdotes of people who missed school and succeeded, concerns about the impact on disadvantaged children, debates about the value of schooling beyond test scores, and Scott's reflections on the reactions to his original post. The author also shares his thoughts on the nature of education, forced activities for children, and the ethical implications of arguing for weaker positions while holding stronger views. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander discusses how his blog contributes to developing rationality skills through analysis of complex issues and community discussion, despite not focusing directly on core rationality techniques. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reflects on the role of his blog in the rationalist community's development of rationality skills. He compares rationality to a martial art or craft, requiring both theory and practice. While acknowledging that his blog often focuses on controversial topics rather than core rationality techniques, he argues that analyzing complex, contentious issues serves as valuable practice for honing rationality skills. He suggests that through repeated engagement with difficult problems, readers can develop intuitions and refine their ability to apply rationality techniques. Scott emphasizes the importance of community discussion in this process, highlighting how reader comments contribute to his own learning and updating of beliefs. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander reviews 'Inadequate Equilibria' by Eliezer Yudkowsky, a book exploring systemic failures, decision-making, and the limits of social consensus. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reviews Eliezer Yudkowsky's book 'Inadequate Equilibria', which explores why bad situations persist despite pressure to improve them, when to trust social consensus vs. personal reasoning, and the pitfalls of overusing the Outside View in decision-making. The book offers a framework for analyzing systemic failures and inefficiencies, but Scott finds its treatment of the Outside View somewhat disappointing. He recommends reading the book despite its flaws, citing its thought-provoking nature and useful conceptual toolbox. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explores theories to reconcile contradictory views on AI progress rates, considering the implications for AI development timelines and intelligence scaling. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the apparent contradiction between Eliezer Yudkowsky's argument that AI progress will be rapid once it reaches human level, and Katja Grace's data showing gradual AI improvement across human-level tasks. He explores several theories to reconcile this, including mutational load, purpose-built hardware, varying sub-abilities, and the possibility that human intelligence variation is actually vast compared to other animals. The post ends by considering implications for AI development timelines and potential rapid scaling of intelligence. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander shares a collection of mostly critical and often insulting testimonials about his blog Slate Star Codex, revealing the diverse and polarized reactions to his work. Longer summary

Scott Alexander shares a collection of testimonials and feedback he has received about his blog Slate Star Codex over three years. The post presents a wide range of opinions, many of which are highly critical, insulting, or dismissive. The feedback touches on various aspects of Scott's writing, personality, and the blog's community. Some comments praise his intelligence while criticizing his verbosity or political stance. Others mock his writing style, accuse him of censorship, or make personal attacks. The testimonials reveal the diverse and often polarized reactions to Scott's work, ranging from admiration to outright hostility. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander discusses the problem of overconfidence in probability estimates, arguing that extreme certainty is rarely justified, especially for complex future predictions. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the problem of overconfidence in probability estimates, particularly when people claim to be extremely certain about complex future events. He explains how experiments show that people are often vastly overconfident, even when they claim 99.9999% certainty. Scott argues that extreme confidence is rarely justified, especially for predictions about technological progress or societal changes. He suggests that overconfidence contributes to intolerance and close-mindedness, and that studying history can help reduce overconfidence by showing how often confident predictions have been wrong in the past. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander defends Less Wrong and Eliezer Yudkowsky against accusations of being anti-scientific, arguing that developing rational thinking skills beyond traditional scientific methods is valuable and necessary. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to Topher Hallquist's criticism of Less Wrong and Eliezer Yudkowsky as being 'anti-scientific rationality'. Scott argues that Hallquist's criticisms are often unfair or inaccurate, taking quotes out of context or misunderstanding Yudkowsky's positions. He defends the rationalist community's efforts to develop better thinking tools that go beyond traditional scientific methods, while still respecting science. Scott contends that developing an 'Art of Thinking Clearly' is valuable and necessary, especially for experts who have to make difficult judgments. He argues Less Wrong is not against science, but wants to strengthen and supplement it with additional rational thinking skills. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explores the possibility of a 'General Factor of Correctness' and its implications for rationality and decision-making across various fields. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the concept of a 'General Factor of Correctness', inspired by Eliezer Yudkowsky's essay on the 'Correct Contrarian Cluster'. He explores whether people who are correct about one controversial topic are more likely to be correct about others, beyond what we'd expect from chance. The post delves into the challenges of identifying such a factor, including separating it from expert consensus agreement, IQ, or education level. Scott examines studies on calibration and prediction accuracy, noting intriguing correlations between calibration skills and certain beliefs. He concludes by emphasizing the importance of this concept to the rationalist project, suggesting that if such a 'correctness skill' exists, cultivating it could be valuable for improving decision-making across various domains. Shorter summary

Scott shares and comments on various interesting links covering topics like international relations, medical research, technology, and social issues, mixing academic discussion with curious anecdotes. Longer summary

This is a links post where Scott Alexander shares various interesting links he found, with brief commentary on each. The links cover diverse topics from North Korea's Twitter account to medical research about nutrition, and from academic gender studies to technological development. Scott provides context and sometimes critique for the linked articles, maintaining a mix of serious academic discussion and lighter curiosities. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander refutes a blog post criticizing rationalism, arguing it misunderstands the movement and its core values of empiricism, scholarship, and humility. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques a blog post titled 'Why I Am Not A Rationalist' on Almost Diamonds, arguing that it fundamentally misunderstands both classical rationalism (Descartes) and modern rationalism (Yudkowsky). He points out that the blog post accuses rationalists of lacking empiricism, scholarship, and humility, when these are in fact core values of the rationalist movement. Scott provides numerous examples to demonstrate the rationalist community's commitment to these principles. He concludes by explaining why rationality skills are necessary in addition to empirical knowledge, especially when dealing with limited or conflicting information. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander promotes a charity event, encouraging donations to MIRI or Sankara Eye Foundation to help them win valuable services. Longer summary

Scott Alexander is promoting a charity event where the organization with the most unique donors of $10 or more by midnight wins valuable services. He encourages readers to donate to MIRI (Machine Intelligence Research Institute), which works on ensuring a positive singularity and friendly AI. MIRI is close to the top place with only a few hours left. Scott also mentions the option to donate to the current leader, Sankara Eye Foundation, which provides eye care for poor Indian children. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander discusses the concept of one-sided tradeoffs, using examples from college admissions to life hacks, and suggests ways to find opportunities for 'free' gains in various decisions. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the concept of one-sided tradeoffs using college admissions as a starting point. He explains how most decisions involve tradeoffs between different qualities, but suggests ways to find opportunities for 'free' gains. These include insider trading (having unique knowledge), bias compensation (exploiting others' biases), and comparative advantage (specializing in a specific area). He applies this framework to policy debates, life hacks, and personal decisions, arguing that understanding these concepts can help identify opportunities where one can gain benefits without significant downsides. The post concludes with examples like considering nootropics if one isn't afraid of taking drugs, or buying houses on streets with rude names for a discount. Shorter summary