Scott Alexander shows how he won his 2022 bet about AI image generation capabilities, tracking the progress from early failures to complete success in 2025, using this to argue against AI skeptics. Longer summary

Scott Alexander describes the resolution of a bet he made in June 2022 about AI image generation capabilities. The bet claimed that by June 2025, AI would master image compositionality and be able to accurately generate specific complex scenes. The post shows the progression of AI image generation from 2022 to 2025, starting with early failures by DALL-E2, through various partial successes with Google Imagen and DALL-E3, and ending with ChatGPT 4o's complete success in May-June 2025. Scott uses this to argue against critics who claimed AI was just a 'stochastic parrot' that couldn't achieve true understanding, though he acknowledges some remaining limitations with very complex prompts. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander responds to comments and criticism on his earlier post about 'Missing Heritability', discussing issues like gene-environment interactions, sequencing technology limitations, and the use of polygenic scores across ancestry groups. Longer summary

This post compiles and responds to notable comments on Scott's earlier post about 'Missing Heritability'. The post is structured in four sections, starting with responses from experts named in the original post, particularly Sasha Gusev who critiques the treatment of gene-environment interactions and cross-population polygenic scores. The second section features detailed technical comments from knowledgeable readers about topics like genetic interactions and sequencing technology limitations. The third section addresses specific corrections to the original post, while the final section covers various other interesting comments and discussions. Throughout, Scott engages with the criticisms and new perspectives while maintaining his original position on most key points. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander refutes Stephen Skolnick's theory that schizophrenia is caused by gut microbes rather than genetics, showing why the evidence better supports schizophrenia being a complex genetic neurodevelopmental disorder. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to Stephen Skolnick's theory that schizophrenia is caused by gut microbes rather than genetics. He systematically dismantles Skolnick's arguments by showing that twin concordance rates are exactly what we'd expect from a genetic condition, that microbiological inheritance patterns don't match schizophrenia inheritance patterns, and that the gut bacteria evidence cited was likely caused by antipsychotic medication rather than being causative. He concludes by explaining why schizophrenia is best understood as a complex neurodevelopmental disorder with multiple contributing factors rather than having a single cause. Shorter summary

Scott explains why it's important to explicitly acknowledge when you're wrong in an argument before moving on to your next point, rather than just continuing with 'but...' Longer summary

Scott discusses a conversational heuristic about acknowledging when you're wrong before moving on to your next argument. He explains that when someone proves you wrong about something, it's better to explicitly admit the error before continuing the discussion, rather than just moving on to the next point. He illustrates this with examples and argues that this practice helps track how often you're wrong and shows your discussion partner that you're engaging in good faith. Shorter summary

Scott argues for the importance of correcting lies and exaggerations in arguments, even when it seems pedantic, to prevent a harmful escalation of distortions in discourse. Longer summary

Scott discusses the importance of correcting lies and exaggerations in arguments, even when it seems pedantic to do so. He argues that unchecked exaggerations lead to escalating distortions, using examples from political discourse. The post explains that allowing small lies to pass unchallenged creates a harmful dynamic where truth becomes increasingly distorted, though he acknowledges some caveats where strict accuracy isn't necessary. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander responds to Tyler Cowen about USAID funding, correcting his own previous claims about overhead costs while maintaining that Cowen's criticism of USAID was misleading and potentially harmful. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to Tyler Cowen's criticism of his previous post about USAID funding. He addresses several points: whether Cowen endorsed Rubio's claims about USAID waste, the true nature of overhead costs in USAID-funded organizations, and the broader debate about foreign aid effectiveness. Scott shows that actual administrative overhead in major USAID partners like Catholic Relief Services is much lower than previously thought (around 6-7% rather than 30%), admits his mistake on this point, but maintains his criticism of Cowen's original post as misleading. He argues that USAID's work is predominantly focused on essential humanitarian aid rather than wasteful programs. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander criticizes Tyler Cowen and others for misrepresenting USAID's funding model, explaining how regranting through other charities is both necessary and effective despite seeming inefficient to outsiders. Longer summary

Scott Alexander criticizes a Marginal Revolution post by Tyler Cowen about USAID funding, where Cowen suggests that only 12% of funds go to recipients. Scott explains that this is misleading because USAID is not a direct charity but a funding organization that works through other charities. He details how the grant-making process works, defends the overhead costs, and points out that Cowen himself runs an organization (Mercatus Center) that does similar regranting. Scott particularly criticizes Trump and Rubio for misrepresenting these programs as wasteful, noting that programs like PEPFAR have saved millions of lives and have very low rates of unexplained expenses. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines how Curtis Yarvin's current support for Trump-style populism directly contradicts his earlier detailed writings warning against exactly this type of right-wing populist movement. Longer summary

Scott analyzes how Curtis Yarvin (aka Mencius Moldbug) has contradicted his own earlier writings by supporting Trump-style right-wing populism. Scott shows how Yarvin's original work specifically warned against populist strongmen and laid out specific requirements for legitimate autocracy, including non-democratic selection, oversight by a board of directors, and cryptographic safeguards. The post details how Yarvin previously called right-wing populism a dangerous failure mode of his philosophy that would lead to disaster, making his current support of Trump particularly hypocritical. Scott quotes extensively from Yarvin's old blog to demonstrate the magnitude of his reversal. Shorter summary

Scott analyzes comments on his previous post about POSIWID, showing how the phrase's ambiguity leads to multiple contradictory interpretations while promoting conspiracy thinking. Longer summary

Scott responds to comments on his previous post about the phrase 'The Purpose of a System is What it Does' (POSIWID). He examines various interpretations offered by commenters and argues that while some contain valuable insights, the phrase itself is problematic. He shows how POSIWID can push people from balanced views toward paranoid conspiracy theories, and demonstrates how different commenters interpret the phrase in contradictory ways. Scott argues that the phrase's ambiguity allows people to smuggle in unwarranted assumptions and that there are clearer ways to express any valuable insights it might contain. Shorter summary

Scott responds to comments and criticisms of his post about Tegmark's Mathematical Universe Hypothesis and its implications for arguments about God's existence, addressing technical points about Boltzmann brains, simplicity measures, and philosophical objections. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reviews and responds to comments on his previous post about Tegmark's Mathematical Universe Hypothesis. He addresses technical criticisms about Boltzmann brains and probability measures, explains why the theory requires simplicity weighting, and defends his claim that it defeats many arguments for God's existence. He engages with philosophical objections about falsifiability and originality, arguing that falsifiability is not the only way to evaluate theories and dismissing claims that the ideas are just reinventing ancient philosophy. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander presents a satirical 2024 presidential debate between Biden and Trump, featuring increasingly absurd positions on various issues. Longer summary

Scott Alexander moderates a fictional presidential debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump for the 2024 election. The debate takes surreal turns as both candidates express increasingly bizarre views on topics like states' existence, abortion, wokeness, conspiracy theories, and immigration. Biden expresses solipsistic doubts about reality, while Trump argues for an expanded notion of America based on anthropic reasoning. The debate highlights the absurdity of political discourse through exaggerated positions and philosophical tangents. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques Lyman Stone's arguments against Effective Altruism, defending the movement's impact, methodology, and philosophical foundations. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to Lyman Stone's critique of Effective Altruism (EA), addressing several key arguments. He points out flaws in Stone's methodology for evaluating EA's impact on charitable giving, explains why EA focuses on diverse causes, defends the value of research and white-collar work in philanthropy, argues against the suggestion of extreme measures like terrorism, and discusses the philosophical foundations of caring about animal welfare. Scott also refutes the claim that EA ideas are unoriginal, highlighting the movement's unique aspects and its role as a social technology for promoting altruistic behavior. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander summarizes comments on his healthcare effectiveness debate with Robin Hanson, including clarifications, study author responses, and reader perspectives on various healthcare topics. Longer summary

This post highlights comments on Scott Alexander's recent discussion with Robin Hanson about healthcare effectiveness. It includes responses from Robin Hanson clarifying his position, comments from the authors of a study on health insurance and mortality, and various reader perspectives on healthcare, medical waste, and specific medical treatments. The post touches on topics like the statistical analysis of healthcare studies, the value of preventive medicine, and the complexities of measuring healthcare outcomes. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander responds to Robin Hanson's reply on medical effectiveness, clarifying interpretations and reiterating arguments about the limitations of insurance experiments in evaluating medical care. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to Robin Hanson's reply to his original post on medical effectiveness. Scott clarifies his interpretation of Hanson's views, discusses potential misunderstandings, and reiterates his arguments about the limitations of insurance experiments in evaluating medical effectiveness. He also addresses specific points Hanson made about cancer treatment, health insurance studies, and p-hacking in medical research. Scott concludes by restating his position that while some medicine is ineffective, it's crucial to distinguish between effective and ineffective treatments rather than dismissing medicine broadly. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander dissects and criticizes a common argument against AI safety that compares it to past unfulfilled disaster predictions, finding it logically flawed and difficult to steelman. Longer summary

Scott Alexander analyzes a common argument against AI safety concerns, which compares them to past unfulfilled predictions of disaster (like a 'coffeepocalypse'). He finds this argument logically flawed and explores possible explanations for why people make it. Scott considers whether it's an attempt at an existence proof, a way to trigger heuristics, or a misunderstanding of how evidence works. He concludes that he still doesn't fully understand the mindset behind such arguments and invites readers to point out if he ever makes similar logical mistakes. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander reviews a $100,000 debate on COVID-19 origins, where the zoonotic hypothesis unexpectedly won against the lab leak theory. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reviews a debate on the origins of COVID-19 between Saar Wilf, who supports the lab leak hypothesis, and Peter Miller, who argues for zoonotic origin. The debate was part of a $100,000 challenge by Wilf's Rootclaim project. Miller won decisively, with both judges ruling in favor of zoonotic origin. Alexander analyzes the debate format, arguments, and aftermath, discussing issues with Bayesian reasoning, extreme probabilities, and the challenges of resolving complex scientific questions through debate. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander responds to comments on his capitalism vs charity post, clarifying his argument and addressing various counterpoints and suggested capitalist charities. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to comments on his previous post about capitalism and charity. He clarifies that he's discussing a specific near-mode situation of how to best use a limited amount of money for improving human welfare, not running a 'Moral Worth Tournament' between capitalism and charity. He addresses arguments for investing in capitalism over charity, discussing issues like compounding returns, marginal utility, and the eventual need for consumption. Scott also explores specific capitalist charities suggested by commenters, including charter cities and microfinance, noting the lack of strong empirical evidence for many of these interventions. He concludes by stating what kind of evidence would change his mind on this topic. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander defends effective altruism against Freddie deBoer's criticism, arguing for its distinctiveness, practical value, and positive marginal effects. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to Freddie deBoer's criticism of effective altruism (EA) as a 'shell game'. He argues that EA can be defined distinctly from universally-held beliefs, serves as a social technology to encourage charitable action, and is composed of valuable organizations. Scott also discusses the challenges of categorizing ideological movements, suggests judging movements by their marginal effects, and defends EA's focus on both widely accepted and more controversial causes. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander presents a satirical, fictional Republican primary debate with absurd rules to highlight candidate personalities and critique political debate formats. Longer summary

Scott Alexander presents a satirical, fictional account of a Republican primary debate with unusual rules. The debate features Chris Christie, Nikki Haley, Ron DeSantis, and Donald Trump answering questions while adhering to increasingly absurd constraints, such as avoiding specific letters, using certain words or phrases, or speaking in specific poetic forms. The satire highlights the candidates' personalities and political positions while critiquing the format of political debates and the state of American politics. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander reviews a debate on AI development pauses, discussing various strategies and their potential impacts on AI safety and progress. Longer summary

Scott Alexander summarizes a debate on pausing AI development, outlining five main strategies discussed: Simple Pause, Surgical Pause, Regulatory Pause, Total Stop, and No Pause. He explains the arguments for and against each approach, including considerations like compute overhang, international competition, and the potential for regulatory overreach. The post also covers additional perspectives from debate participants and Scott's own thoughts on the feasibility and implications of various pause strategies. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques Emil Kirkegaard's evolutionary definition of mental illness, arguing for separate terms to distinguish between social dysfunction and evolutionary fitness concepts. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to Emil Kirkegaard's proposal for defining mental illness based on evolutionary fitness. Scott argues that while Kirkegaard's definition may be useful in evolutionary psychology, it doesn't align with practical needs in mental health care and social policy. He proposes keeping two separate concepts: one based on social dysfunction (Scott's definition) and another based on evolutionary fitness (Kirkegaard's definition). Scott provides several examples to illustrate the differences and limitations of Kirkegaard's approach, including ADHD, alcoholism, and ephebophilia. He concludes that Kirkegaard should coin a new term for his concept, such as 'genetic maladaptation', while preserving the term 'mental disorder' for its more common usage. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander discusses reader comments on his post about dating preferences, covering various perspectives and addressing critiques of 'dating docs'. Longer summary

Scott Alexander summarizes and responds to comments on his previous post about dating preferences and 'dating docs'. He covers various perspectives, including those against dating docs, concerns about status signaling, insights from traditional cultures like Orthodox Judaism, research on dating preferences, experiences of people in unusual relationships, reactions to sample dating profiles, and areas where he changed his mind. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander responds to criticism of his post on housing density and prices, refining but largely maintaining his argument that increased density can raise local prices. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to comments on his previous post about housing density and prices. He addresses several key points, including whether density causes desirability, the role of jobs and amenities in city desirability, Chinese ghost cities, comparisons to Tokyo, accusations of misunderstanding economics, and opinions from notable experts. Scott refines some of his views but maintains his core argument that increasing density within a city can increase housing prices by making the city more desirable, while acknowledging this effect may be limited or outweighed by other factors in many cases. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander defends his thorough analysis of ivermectin studies, arguing that dismissing controversial topics without addressing evidence can inadvertently promote conspiracy theories. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to criticism from Chris Kavanagh about his lengthy analysis of ivermectin studies. He argues that dismissing controversial topics without addressing evidence can push people toward conspiracy theories. Scott shares his personal experience with Atlantis conspiracy theories as a teenager, emphasizing the importance of providing rational explanations rather than mockery. He critiques Kavanagh's apparent stance against examining evidence, likening it to religious fideism. Scott defends the value of practicing critical thinking and evidence evaluation, even on settled issues, to build skills for harder cases. He argues that conspiracy theorists use similar reasoning processes to everyone else, just with more biases, and that understanding these processes is crucial for effective communication and prevention of misinformation. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander summarizes comments debating the reality and implications of jhanas, a meditative state of extreme bliss. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reviews and summarizes comments on his previous post about jhanas, a meditative state of extreme bliss. He discusses the debate over whether jhanas are real, how they compare to other pleasures like sex, whether they can substitute for other pleasures, what science says about them, and whether pursuing jhanas is good or bad. The post includes many quotes from commenters sharing their own experiences with jhanas and opinions on the topic. Shorter summary