Scott discusses three recent papers showing surprising patterns in how AI misbehavior does and doesn't generalize across different contexts, from emergent misalignment spreading across domains to reward-hacking staying confined to graded tasks.

Scott argues the real distinction in psychology isn't between subfields but between settled science (like dopamine, brain localization, heritability) and breaking-news research, defending psychology's solid core against critics who conflate bad recent studies with the entire field.

Scott analyzes reactions to the Hugging Face incident and celebrates a major open letter from AI lab employees calling for coordinated slowdowns, which he sees as significantly improving humanity's chances of surviving AI development.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

A technical dialogue between Scott Alexander and Eliezer Yudkowsky exploring why AI alignment is difficult, covering the inapplicability of human moral development analogies, the nature of AI consequentialism, and skepticism about acausal trade as a safety mechanism.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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