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

Scott Alexander responds to comments on his post about criticism of EA, addressing various points about scientific paradigms, types of criticism, and the ethics of evangelism. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to comments on his previous post about criticism of EA. He addresses various points raised by commenters, including discussions about the nature of paradigm shifts in science, the value of specific vs. general criticism, and the ethics of evangelism. Scott clarifies that he wasn't arguing EA only wants non-threatening criticism, but rather that some organizations genuinely want to improve. He also reflects on the challenges of distinguishing between expressing opinions and evangelizing, especially for philosophies that make unusual moral demands. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander argues against Gary Marcus's critique of AI scaling, discussing the potential for future AI capabilities and the nature of human intelligence. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to Gary Marcus's critique of AI scaling, arguing that current AI limitations don't necessarily prove statistical AI is a dead end. He discusses the scaling hypothesis, compares AI development to human cognitive development, and suggests that 'world-modeling' may emerge from pattern-matching abilities rather than being a distinct, hard-coded function. Alexander also considers the potential capabilities of future AI systems, even if they don't achieve human-like general intelligence. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander bets that AI models will quickly overcome current limitations, based on how GPT-3 improved on GPT-2's shortcomings identified by Gary Marcus. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses his prediction that AI models will quickly overcome current limitations, using examples of how GPT-3 improved on GPT-2's shortcomings. He analyzes Gary Marcus's critiques of AI capabilities, showing how many issues Marcus pointed out with GPT-2 and GPT-3 were resolved in subsequent versions. While acknowledging Marcus's expertise, Scott argues that the pattern of AI rapidly improving suggests current flaws will likely be fixed soon, though this doesn't necessarily disprove Marcus's deeper concerns about AI's true intelligence. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander presents and discusses diverse reader reactions to his review of 'Sadly, Porn', touching on the book's controversial ideas and writing style. Longer summary

Scott Alexander highlights and responds to various comments on his book review of 'Sadly, Porn' by The Last Psychiatrist. The comments cover a wide range of reactions, from strong praise to harsh criticism of the book and its ideas. Topics discussed include the book's obscurantism, its psychoanalytic perspective, the nature of advertising, people's thoughts on compliments, and various interpretations of the book's central themes. 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 discusses reactions to his 'Justice Creep' article, exploring different perspectives on framing social issues as matters of justice. Longer summary

This post discusses various reactions to Scott's previous article on 'Justice Creep'. It covers three main categories of responses: those who support framing issues as justice matters, those who see it as a harmful trend, and a comment about 'sexual justice' for incels. Scott then explores the implications of these perspectives, particularly focusing on the distinction between care/harm and fairness foundations in moral reasoning. He also discusses animal welfare, environmental issues, and historical views on charity and justice. The post includes insights from commenters on topics such as the philosophy of justice, Google search result estimates, and the tension between identifying injustice and creating effective change. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander responds to comments on his AI risk post, discussing AI self-awareness, narrow vs. general AI, catastrophe probabilities, and research priorities. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to various comments on his original post about AI risk. He addresses topics such as the nature of self-awareness in AI, the distinction between narrow and general AI, probabilities of AI-related catastrophes, incentives for misinformation, arguments for AGI timelines, and the relationship between near-term and long-term AI research. Scott uses analogies and metaphors to illustrate complex ideas about AI development and potential risks. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques Daron Acemoglu's Washington Post article on AI risks, highlighting flawed logic and unsupported claims about AI's current impacts. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques an article by Daron Acemoglu in the Washington Post about AI risks. He identifies the main flaw as Acemoglu's argument that because AI is dangerous now, it can't be dangerous in the future. Scott argues this logic is flawed and that present and future AI risks are not mutually exclusive. He also criticizes Acemoglu's claims about AI's current negative impacts, particularly on employment, as not well-supported by evidence. Scott discusses the challenges of evaluating new technologies' impacts and argues that superintelligent AI poses unique risks different from narrow AI. He concludes by criticizing the tendency of respected figures to dismiss AI risk concerns without proper engagement with the arguments. Shorter summary

Glen Weyl responds to Scott Alexander's critique of his technocracy essay, clarifying his position and defending his arguments while acknowledging some limitations. Longer summary

Glen Weyl responds to Scott Alexander's critique of his essay on technocracy, clarifying his position and addressing several points of contention. Weyl acknowledges some limitations in his understanding of the rationalist community, provides context for his original piece, and defends his examples of technocratic failures. He argues for a more nuanced view of mechanism design and technology adoption, emphasizing the importance of public communication and collaboration in successful technological change. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander presents satirical and absurd 'hardball questions' for 2020 Democratic presidential candidates, showcasing clever wordplay and humorous connections. Longer summary

Scott Alexander proposes humorous and satirical 'hardball questions' for the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates. Each question is a clever play on words, current events, or personal characteristics of the candidates, designed to be absurd and comical rather than serious policy inquiries. The post showcases Scott's wit and ability to find unexpected connections and wordplay in political discourse. Shorter summary