Scott Alexander presents a series of satirical job interviews at Thiel Capital, where candidates share increasingly absurd unpopular beliefs, highlighting the nature of conspiracy theories and contrarian thinking. Longer summary

This post is a satirical piece featuring a series of fictional job interviews at Thiel Capital. Each interview involves asking candidates to share an unpopular belief they hold. The responses range from absurd conspiracy theories to unconventional interpretations of historical events and scientific concepts. The interviewers' reactions highlight the absurdity of the candidates' beliefs, while also poking fun at the idea of 'based' or controversial opinions in tech and finance circles. The piece uses humor to explore themes of conspiracy theories, contrarian thinking, and the nature of unconventional beliefs. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander analyzes California's AI regulation bill SB1047, finding it reasonably well-designed despite misrepresentations, and ultimately supporting it as a compromise between safety and innovation. Longer summary

Scott Alexander examines California's proposed AI regulation bill SB1047, which aims to regulate large AI models. He explains that contrary to some misrepresentations, the bill is reasonably well-designed, applying only to very large models and focusing on preventing catastrophic harms like creating weapons of mass destruction or major cyberattacks. Scott addresses various objections to the bill, dismissing some as based on misunderstandings while acknowledging other more legitimate concerns. He ultimately supports the bill, seeing it as a good compromise between safety and innovation, while urging readers to pay attention to the conversation and be wary of misrepresentations. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander writes a satirical account of a Bay Area house party, mocking various tech and social trends in a Chaucer-inspired style. Longer summary

Scott Alexander presents another satirical Bay Area house party scenario, this time written in a Chaucer-inspired style. The narrator encounters various eccentric characters, each representing absurd or exaggerated tech and social trends. The post humorously critiques concepts like land acknowledgments, tunnel-digging ventures, anti-celebrity magazines, QR code browsers, and overzealous environmental protection. It also pokes fun at tech optimism, social awkwardness, and the Bay Area startup culture. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander satirizes Silicon Valley culture through a fictional house party where everyone is obsessed with Sam Altman's firing from OpenAI. Longer summary

Scott Alexander writes a satirical account of a Bay Area house party, where conversations are dominated by speculation about Sam Altman's firing from OpenAI. The narrator encounters various eccentric characters, including startup founders with unusual ideas and people with conspiracy theories about the Altman situation. The story humorously exaggerates Silicon Valley culture, tech industry obsessions, and the tendency for people to form elaborate theories about current events. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander summarizes and responds to comments on his book review about IRBs, covering various perspectives on research regulation. Longer summary

Scott Alexander summarizes key comments on his book review of 'From Oversight to Overkill' about IRBs (Institutional Review Boards). The post covers various perspectives on IRBs and research regulations, including stories from researchers, comparisons to other industries, discussions on regulation and liability, debates on act vs. omission distinctions, potential applications to AI governance, and other miscellaneous observations. Scott provides additional context and his own thoughts on many of the comments. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander responds to comments on his 'Don't Look Up' movie review, addressing criticisms and exploring various interpretations of the film. Longer summary

Scott Alexander summarizes and responds to comments on his review of the movie 'Don't Look Up'. He acknowledges some valid criticisms of his review, discusses the feasibility of deflecting comets as portrayed in the film, explores the movie's political stance, and shares interesting observations from viewers. The post includes discussions on the movie's scientific accuracy, its portrayal of peer review, and speculations about which real-life tech CEO a character might be based on. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander announces the ACX Reader Research Survey, inviting researchers to submit questions for the blog's readership by July 10. Longer summary

Scott Alexander announces the ACX Reader Research Survey, inviting researchers to submit questions for the blog's readership. The survey aims to gather data on specific demographics among ACX readers, such as those in tech, science, meditation/drugs/biohacking, with unusual genders/sexualities, or psychiatric issues. Researchers are asked to email Scott with their project details and a Google Form containing their questions by July 10. The survey structure is still being finalized, but will likely involve assigning User IDs and asking basic demographic questions before directing participants to complete a selection of submitted surveys. The survey will run until August 1, with results potentially leading to blog posts or academic papers. Shorter summary

Scott explores the concept of antifragility in relation to libertarianism, introducing 'diversity libertarianism' to analyze issues like corporate censorship and religious pressure on businesses. Longer summary

Scott Alexander expands on the concept of antifragility from Nassim Taleb's book, applying it to libertarianism and corporate censorship. He introduces the idea of 'diversity libertarianism,' which favors high variance in options for areas where people can freely choose, but low variance for systems prone to catastrophic failures. This framework is used to analyze issues like corporate censorship and religious pressure on businesses, arguing that libertarians can consistently support diverse corporate policies while opposing coordinated censorship. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander responds to a New York Times article about him, addressing what he sees as unfair claims and misrepresentations. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to a recent New York Times article about him and his blog, which he perceives as negative and retaliatory. He addresses four main claims from the article, explaining why he feels they are unfair or misrepresented. Scott denies being aligned with Charles Murray's controversial views on race, clarifies his comments about feminists, defends his stance on women in tech, and addresses his alleged connections to right-wing figures in Silicon Valley. He expresses concern about the article's impact on his friends, family, and patients, and requests that people not contact him about the situation. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander analyzes survey data to investigate whether assortative mating among highly analytical people increases autism risk in their children, finding no significant evidence for this hypothesis. Longer summary

Scott Alexander investigates whether assortative mating among highly analytical people in Silicon Valley increases the risk of autism in their children. He uses data from the 2020 Slate Star Codex survey, which included 8,043 respondents from highly analytical backgrounds. The study found that while the sample had higher rates of autism (4-8%) than the general population (2.5-5%), there was no significant increase in autism rates among children of couples where both partners were highly analytical. The autism rate for children in the sample was 3.7-5.2%, with only 0.6% having severe autism. Scott concludes that while the study has limitations, it provides evidence against strong versions of the assortative mating hypothesis for autism risk. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander clarifies his intentions behind the APA photo-essay and cautions against overly negative interpretations of psychiatry or any professional field based on selective criticism. Longer summary

Scott Alexander addresses the unexpected negative reactions to his previous APA photo-essay, which was intended as a lighthearted critique rather than a condemnation of psychiatry. He draws parallels between the tech industry and psychiatry, noting how both can be unfairly portrayed through selective reporting of their worst aspects. Scott emphasizes that while there are issues in psychiatry, the field also includes many dedicated professionals doing important work. He encourages readers to be skeptical of overly critical portrayals of any field, including his own writings, invoking the concept of Gell-Mann Amnesia. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander presents counterarguments to YIMBY housing policies, questioning their effectiveness and considering NIMBY perspectives. Longer summary

Scott Alexander steelmans the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) position against YIMBYism (Yes In My Back Yard) in housing policy debates, particularly focused on San Francisco. He argues that: 1) San Francisco's housing growth rate is not uniquely low, 2) Building more housing may not significantly lower rents, 3) Increased housing supply could potentially increase rents due to agglomeration effects, 4) NIMBYs have valid reasons to oppose development, and 5) Increasing housing supply might trap more people in an undesirable equilibrium. He concludes by acknowledging the lack of clear alternatives but expressing skepticism that simply building more housing will solve the problem. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander reviews and responds to comments on his survey about sexual harassment rates in different fields, addressing methodological issues and presenting additional demographic data. Longer summary

This post discusses comments and analyses related to the SSC Survey Results on Sexual Harassment Levels By Field. It covers various points raised by commenters, including attempts to reproduce the results, alternative interpretations of the data, methodological critiques, and additional factors that might influence harassment rates. The post also presents additional data on harassment rates by various demographic factors, while cautioning against drawing strong conclusions without proper statistical analysis. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander analyzes survey data showing lower sexual harassment rates in STEM fields compared to other industries, contradicting media narratives, while urging caution and calling for more research. Longer summary

Scott Alexander analyzes data from his blog's survey on sexual harassment rates across different fields. The survey found that STEM and traditionally male-dominated fields had lower rates of reported sexual harassment compared to more verbal/personal skills-oriented fields. This contradicts media narratives about tech having unusually high harassment rates. Scott notes the strong correlation between at-work and out-of-work harassment rates across fields, suggesting differences may be more related to the people in each field rather than workplace cultures. He urges caution in interpreting the results, acknowledges potential biases, and calls for more rigorous research on this topic given the lack of good comparative data across industries. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques Adam Grant's article on gender differences in tech, arguing Grant misrepresents evidence and ignores key factors like innate interest differences between men and women. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques Adam Grant's article on gender differences, arguing that Grant misrepresents scientific evidence and ignores important factors like interest differences between men and women. Scott presents alternative explanations for gender imbalances in tech and other fields, emphasizing innate differences in interests rather than discrimination. He expresses concern about the hostile climate developing in tech around these issues. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques a study claiming gender bias in GitHub, pointing out methodological flaws and media misrepresentation of its non-peer-reviewed findings. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques a study about gender bias in GitHub pull request acceptance rates. He points out several issues with the study's methodology and interpretation, including the lack of peer review, ambiguous statistical significance, and potential confounding factors. He also criticizes media outlets for misrepresenting the study's findings, exaggerating its conclusions, and failing to mention its non-peer-reviewed status. Scott emphasizes that the study actually shows women's pull requests are accepted more often overall, and that the observed bias against women in one subgroup is small and possibly not statistically significant. He expresses concern about how such studies are used to promote a narrative of widespread sexism in tech. Shorter summary