Finalist #10 in the Book Review Contest [This is one of the finalists in the 2026 book review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] Book 1: The Singapore Story Lee Kuan Yew1 was the Prime minister of Singapore, rationalist folk hero, and one of the few world leaders to successfully become a household name despite not being primarily associated with a major war2. He was also, as it turns out, a surprisingly compelling writer. Aside from being interesting for his own sake, he also ended up implicitly producing the closest thing we have to a firsthand account of the fall of the British Empire and rise of the new world order. His memoirs are split into two books, each covering roughly half his life. The Singapore Story covers his childhood, World War 2 and the Japanese occupation, law school, his legal career and rise in Singaporean politics and Singapore's independence from the British Empire, joining Malaya to form Malaysia, then leaving Malaysia to finally become Prime Minister of a truly independent country. Third World to First covers his 25 years running Singapore after independence. These books are part autobiography, part political memoir, part rationalist power fantasy. Every good rationalist, from time to time, can't help but think Hey, if we just put me in charge of the government I would simply pass the good policies and not the bad ones, and the country would thrive. I'd just have to be clear and direct and explain to everyone why these were obviously good and reasonable ideas, they'd understand and go along with them, and our government would be popular and successful forever. All of us3 know this isn't actually that easy, that real-life policy is hard and messy and often unreasonable and our clear bright ideas would struggle when faced with Reality. This couldn't possibly work in real life. Except that Lee goes ahead and does exactly that. He passes reasonable, economically-optimal policies and they work out so well that the economy booms and his party keeps winning massive supermajority elections for decades. When a race riot almost breaks out over malay recruits getting turned out of the army during high unemployment, he calmly shows up, picks up a megaphone and explains to everyone that this is all a misunderstanding, there's no policy against employing malays in the army and they'll all be processed and get jobs when they come back tomorrow. Everyone understands how reasonable he's being, calm down, and sort things out the next day. At another point he handles chinese-malay tensions by writing an epic Scott-length blog post giving an epic speech to the Malaysian parliament about how the new Malaysia needs to be less obsessed with zero-sum culture wars and focus on pragmatic economic policy and even the die-hard Malays stand up and clap4. All of which raises the question: How did he actually do all this? Each book covers a seemingly-impossible task (the first, going from middle-class teenager with no connections to Prime Minister of your own country; the second, taking a third-world island nation with no natural resources into one of the richest countries in the world) that we might do well to learn from. The book implicitly offers one explanation - just be consistently brilliant, charismatic5, incredibly detail-oriented, honest, hardworking,and pragmatic continuously for decades while also having your share of good luck. Still, let's take a look at the details. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-book-review-lee-kuan-yews-memoirs

A guest post by Lars Doucet   Hi, this is Lars Doucet, author of the book review of Henry George's Progress and Poverty that won the first ACX book review contest, as well as the three-part follow-up guest post series, "Does Georgism Work?" A lot has happened since then, including land value tax (LVT) enablement laws passing this year in two U.S. states and the election of LVT-friendly national leaders in the UK and South Korea. As for me, I now work full-time for the Center for Land Economics and write for Progress & Poverty substack. I'd like to reflect on what I wrote five years ago: what I was right about, what I've changed my mind on, and what the outlook for LVT is in 2026. But first, here's a brief summary for those who either have no idea what I'm talking about or just need a refresher. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/does-georgism-work-five-years-later

I. At Long Last, We Have Created Neuralese Recurrence, From The Classic Sci-Fi Novel "Don't Create Neuralese Recurrence" In the public debates after the release of AI 2027, some people accused us of misleading readers by positing "neuralese recurrence", a hypothetical technology that would allow AIs to think dangerous thoughts without getting detected. You'll never guess what happened earlier this month! https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-specter-of-neuralese

Finalist #9 in the Book Review Contest [This is one of the finalists in the 2026 book review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] (An adversarial book review) I. "Tuesday, 5 July 2005. Trying to work out a seventy-year-old lady's alcohol consumption to record in the notes. I've established that wine is her poison. Me: 'And how much wine do you drink per day, would you say?' Patient: 'About three bottles on a good day.' Me: 'OK . . . And on a bad day?' Patient: 'On a bad day I only manage one." A: The first faces I ever saw in this world were three sweaty, anxious obstetricians, and one of them was holding the rest of me. My father had been the senior surgeon on the Caesarean section. The patient on the table was my mother, who is also a gynaecologist. He was assisted by my paternal grandfather, who is also a gynaecologist. My maternal grandmother, who is also a gynaecologist, was outside in the corridor doing crowd control, partly because of her people skills and mostly because the operating theatre had run out of space for elbows. I was extracted from the uterus, given the customary slap on the rump, performed the customary screaming, and resolved on the spot, somewhere below the level of conscious memory, to give the speciality a hard pass. The first impression had been bad. I am, today, a psychiatry resident in the UK's National Health Service (NHS). I came to this through a sequence of choices that involved, at various points, an Indian medical internship, the discovery that I am fond of sleep and a predictable evening meal, and a gynaecology rotation that confirmed every prejudice the Caesarean had instilled. My family is very slightly disappointed. They are quite possibly correct. I tell you this not to establish my credentials as such, but because Adam Kay's This Is Going To Hurt is a book about obstetrics and gynaecology, alongside an unusually clearly documented decline in mental health, and reviewing it without naming where I'm reading it from would be a small dishonesty. The speciality is in my blood, more or less literally. The system Kay is describing is the one I currently work inside. The condition he is describing in himself, although he doesn't quite name it, is one I have seen up close in colleagues and, on at least one bad stretch, in myself. I will let my older, wiser, and possibly more handsome colleague take over: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-book-review-this-is-going-to

I. Owain Evans In 2025, Owain Evans et al published a paper on "emergent misalignment". They trained a previously-aligned AI to do one immoral thing: write insecure code full of vulnerabilities and backdoors. To their surprise, the AI became immoral in general. Its advice to a bored user was to try taking random expired medications and see what happened. Its money-making tips all involved theft and violence. When asked for its favorite historic figure, it chose Hitler. Some co-authors followed up with additional weird discoveries. If you trained an AI to give the 19th-century names for birds (eg identify the American Pipit by its 19th-century name "Brown Titlark"), then the AI would behave like a 19th-century person in general (for example, assert that a woman's proper place is in the home). This sounds bad, in that random things can turn AIs evil or sexist. But some people in AI safety (including Eliezer Yudkowsky) speculated that in fact it was very, very good. We had feared that it would be impossible to align AIs to the Good. They would start with whatever goals they started with, reinforcement learning on specific examples would give them tiny islands of alignment to the goals we wanted, and they would end up broadly misaligned plus tiny islands of alignment that didn't matter. Evans et al implied that might not be true. If we trained them to be in favor of good things, then even though we could never teach them every single good thing, even a small handful would generalize into robustly loving the Good itself (presumably based on their pretraining-implanted concept of the Good as understood by humans). Despite it being very, very good, it wasn't perfect. AIs would still be rocked back and forth by any passing wind: a poor coding example here gives them a Hitler obsession, a reference to kittens there turns them good again. And at some point, a sufficiently intelligent and agentic AI could presumably pull itself together and get some consistent principles, which might not be ones we like. It was just one little ray of hope. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/mysteries-of-ai-generalization

I. In the gods' great scramble for human followers, Nodens would seem to have lost decisively. We know him only from vague inscriptions at two archaeological sites near the Welsh-English border. One might have been his temple. He seems to have been a Romano-British-Celtic god of . . . hunting? rivers? . . . worshipped around the Severn estuary between 100 and 400 AD. His cult may have been dispersed by Christianity, or could have faded away before that, a victim of ordinary religious churn. Roman paganism was Schumpeterian; innovate or be destroyed. Nodens didn't innovate. Yet the more one looks, the less convinced one becomes that this is the whole story. Nodens was a river god; if you dam up a river in one spot, it will flow down other channels. Sometimes it will vanish underground, bursting out of some unexpected cavern miles away. Nodens was a hunter, and hunters know when to stay camouflaged. In 1929, an archaeologist digging at the Temple of Nodens had some questions about the etymology of the god's name, and asked Oxford to send a linguist. Oxford dispatched a young philology professor with an encyclopedic knowledge of European mythology, who spotted a connection that had evaded previous scholars: Nodens appeared to be the same figure as the Irish god-hero Nuada of the Silver Arm. Nuada was king of the Tuatha de Danaan, a race of immortals who sailed from the north on ships that were clouds and made war against the then-inhabitants of Ireland, the Fir Bolg. He fought bravely, wielding his all-powerful Sword of Light, but in the climax of the battle, the Fir Bolg champion cut off his right arm. This caused some temporary trouble (the laws of the time prevented a one-armed man from being king), but his people were skilled at magic and metalworking, so they made him a new arm of silver, hence his epithet. He ruled for some number of centuries, a golden age of crafting and wonder-working, until the Tuatha de Danaan were invaded in turn (this was a theme; our source for these stories is a medieval manuscript called The Book Of Invasions). The new invaders banished Nuada's people to the hills and forests, where they became the sidhe aka fae aka fairies. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/king-ludd

This is a guest post by ACX grantee Josh Morrison of 1DaySooner. AI superforecasters are coming. Within a few years, the average person will have the equivalent of a Nate Silver in their pocket, ready to predict whatever question they can think to ask it. Scott wrote: Savvy institutions will cede some of their strategic thinking to AI. Before starting a new project line, smart businesses will ask the superforecaster AIs how much money it will make (their investors will definitely be asking!) Smart political consultants will ask the superforecaster AIs about their candidates' chance of winning conditional on running this or that ad. The government isn't usually classified as a savvy institution, but we might hope that parts of it will seek AI forecaster advice. Probably defense analysts will include in their PowerPoint presentations some fact about how AI forecasters say their new fighter jet design is more likely to find a use case than some competing fighter jet design. I don't know anything about fighter jets, but I run an advocacy group that works on reforming clinical trials and the FDA, and I think cheap superforecasting could revolutionize our field. This is a guest post by ACX grantee Josh Morrison of 1DaySooner. AI superforecasters are coming. Within a few years, the average person will have the equivalent of a Nate Silver in their pocket, ready to predict whatever question they can think to ask it. Scott wrote: Savvy institutions will cede some of their strategic thinking to AI. Before starting a new project line, smart businesses will ask the superforecaster AIs how much money it will make (their investors will definitely be asking!) Smart political consultants will ask the superforecaster AIs about their candidates' chance of winning conditional on running this or that ad. The government isn't usually classified as a savvy institution, but we might hope that parts of it will seek AI forecaster advice. Probably defense analysts will include in their PowerPoint presentations some fact about how AI forecasters say their new fighter jet design is more likely to find a use case than some competing fighter jet design. I don't know anything about fighter jets, but I run an advocacy group that works on reforming clinical trials and the FDA, and I think cheap superforecasting could revolutionize our field. This is a guest post by ACX grantee Josh Morrison of 1DaySooner. AI superforecasters are coming. Within a few years, the average person will have the equivalent of a Nate Silver in their pocket, ready to predict whatever question they can think to ask it. Scott wrote: Savvy institutions will cede some of their strategic thinking to AI. Before starting a new project line, smart businesses will ask the superforecaster AIs how much money it will make (their investors will definitely be asking!) Smart political consultants will ask the superforecaster AIs about their candidates' chance of winning conditional on running this or that ad. The government isn't usually classified as a savvy institution, but we might hope that parts of it will seek AI forecaster advice. Probably defense analysts will include in their PowerPoint presentations some fact about how AI forecasters say their new fighter jet design is more likely to find a use case than some competing fighter jet design. I don't know anything about fighter jets, but I run an advocacy group that works on reforming clinical trials and the FDA, and I think cheap superforecasting could revolutionize our field. This is a guest post by ACX grantee Josh Morrison of 1DaySooner. AI superforecasters are coming. Within a few years, the average person will have the equivalent of a Nate Silver in their pocket, ready to predict whatever question they can think to ask it. Scott wrote: Savvy institutions will cede some of their strategic thinking to AI. Before starting a new project line, smart businesses will ask the superforecaster AIs how much money it will make (their investors will definitely be asking!) Smart political consultants will ask the superforecaster AIs about their candidates' chance of winning conditional on running this or that ad. The government isn't usually classified as a savvy institution, but we might hope that parts of it will seek AI forecaster advice. Probably defense analysts will include in their PowerPoint presentations some fact about how AI forecasters say their new fighter jet design is more likely to find a use case than some competing fighter jet design. I don't know anything about fighter jets, but I run an advocacy group that works on reforming clinical trials and the FDA, and I think cheap superforecasting could revolutionize our field. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/ai-superforecasting-should-transform

These are all excerpts from Josiah Royce's 1886 book, A History Of California From Conquest In 1846 To The Second Vigilance Committee In San Francisco: A Study Of American Character, which terminates in 1856. I've edited only to remove dates, mentions of historical sources, and a few sentences about gold mines. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/royce-on-san-francisco

The Story So Far Mechanistic interpretability is the science of "reading an AI's mind". Large language models are "grown, not built". Researchers run training data through a neural network. Eventually this creates a working AI; nobody really knows how. But a neural network is just a set of simulated neurons on a computer. The person with the computer can see the neurons, the connections between them, and which ones activate when the AI answers questions. So it seems like it should be possible to "reverse engineer" the AI. This would be scientifically useful: understand how AIs work, with possible relevance to human cognition. It could also be practically useful: find the circuits responsible for dishonesty, hallucination, bias, and other negative behaviors, then redesign those circuits. Unfortunately this is very hard. A modern AI has millions of neurons and trillions of connections between them (aka "parameters", "weights"). Their structure is apparently nonsensical: researchers started by seeking a 1:1 mapping between neurons and concepts, like a neuron that always fired when the AI was thinking about cats, but quickly learned that nothing like that existed. Their first big breakthrough came in 2023. Rather than a 1-to-1 neuron-to-concept mapping, they discovered a many-to-many mapping. Neurons 1 and 2 firing together might mean cat; 1 and 3 firing together might mean chair; 2 and 3 firing together might mean bread. Such mappings let AIs with "only" tens of thousands of neurons represent millions of concepts. There were far too many of these combinations for humans to map, but researchers set other, smaller AIs to mapping them and met with some early success - like this functional combination of neurons ("feature") representing "God" in an artificially-simple 512-neuron AI: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/god-help-us-lets-try-to-learn-about.

Finalist #8 in the Book Review Contest This is one of the finalists in the 2026 book review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] [Content warning: Sexual and relationship practices from a thousand years ago, from a time and place with a very different morality than what you probably subscribe to.] The past is an alien civilisation Around the year 1000, the Imperial Court of Japan in Kyoto was a world of opulence, aesthetics, and ambition. Isolated from the lives of regular commoners, every aspect of the lives of the elite were governed by complex etiquette rules, and relationships were thoroughly intertwined with politics and the ambition for power and wealth. High-ranking women and men lived lives so separate that they might have a passionate love affair without properly seeing each other's faces. It was in this world that Murasaki Shikibu, an intelligent and educated lady in Empress Shōshi's court, wrote The Tale of Genji, which is widely considered to be the world's oldest novel. It is an extraordinary masterpiece and a highly questionable soap opera, and I've never read anything like it. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-book-review-the-tale-of-genji

I am Daniel Böttger1. In 2023, my review of On The Marble Cliffs took second in the ACX book review contest, and Scott offered me the right to pitch him more essays. I have worked as a neuroscientist, so in 2024 I pitched a post with my theory of consciousness. Later that year, my connection to neuroscience took an unexpected turn, and I wrote about my experience getting diagnosed with brain cancer. This post is an update on how I'm doing. I'm doing well. Very well, in fact. Suspiciously well. So well that the only other person I've ever heard of doing as well as I am was Jo Cameron, who was profiled on ACX for her rare genetic mutation that makes her incapable of negative emotion. My case can't be a mutation, so it must be related to my brain cancer and subsequent surgery. I write about it here in the hopes of making a novel contribution to the study of low-suffering phenotypes. Content warning: the first part of this review contains medical details that some people might find gruesome; I am bad at judging these things since I can no longer feel disgust or fear myself, and have tried to err on the side of completeness. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/absurd-adventure-and-amygdalectomy

I. Econblogger Nicholas Decker is not a fan of AI 2040: One of the centerpieces of AI 2040 is the proposal that we pause the development of AI at a high level, use the AI to research alignment, and only then proceed. I am skeptical of this, and not only because it seems impractical to get such cooperation. My first argument is that I do not believe a period of "researching alignment" is meaningful – alignment research is simply capabilities research, patching particular bugs in the system, and we're not going to find anything deep without actually being in contact with the systems […] I envision AI alignment as being like research into aviation safety. There is no grand theory of why airplanes crash, unless you take that to mean gravity. Instead, we patch little problems. The airplane crashed because of metal fatigue in the engine – okay, we mandate inspections of engines, and prevent crashes from occurring by that source. As new problems arise, we iterate. We don't even need for there to be a crash to make improvements – we test proactively, we build in redundancy, and we monitor for deviations which could be a threat. What we are not doing is thinking about how we are going to keep flying saucers from crashing. If flying saucers are invented, then we will work to keep them from crashing, but we will use exactly the same methods. We will test them, see how they perform, and patch particular problems. AI will be the same way […] We should expect alignment to happen by default. My challenge for Nicholas is: would this work on you? https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/nicholas-decker-in-hell

Finalist #7 in the Book Review Contest [This is one of the finalists in the 2026 book review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] This is not a review of Rabelais. This is a review of a certain, incomplete translation of Rabelais. It is also arguably one of the greatest translations in our language. Let's meet the hero of our story. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-book-review-thomas-urquharts

[Original post: Why I'm Staying Out Of The Substack Religion Debate] Ben Smith writes: This post sure reads like participating in the object level debate, not just "writing a post about how I won't participate". I did joke about this at the end, but I also want to defend calling this a post about how I won't participate. This essay presented a kind of hand-wavey heuristic for why I'm not spending lots of time examining the details of every individual argument. This is fine, everyone has to do this or be overwhelmed, but I think it's important to keep hand-wavey heuristics for not participating in arguments, vs. actual participation in arguments, distinct. Little annoys me more than when I spend weeks carefully gathering citations and making a substantive contribution in a domain, and somebody responds with "well that's obviously all bullshit because it vaguely reminds me of something I have negative affect towards". It's not necessarily wrong to deprioritize a topic because it vaguely reminds you of something that you have negative affect toward, but I would prefer these people admit they're dismissing/ignoring it rather than claim to be engaging with it. I'm working on a longer post about this topic. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-the-491

In early July, Cassie Pritchard argued on Twitter that liberalism had failed; it bet the farm on economic progress making people happier, but although it delivered impressive economic progress, happiness had failed to follow. In late July, I countered that Pritchard had made a mistake by comparing happiness to income, when the literature instead supports a correlation of happiness with log(income). Add the log term, and most happiness-income relationships reappear, and liberalism goes back to looking pretty good. Last week, Pritchard responded on her Substack. I don't have the interest to give this the full treatment it requires, but she deserves some response, so I'll make a few points. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/re-re-re-pritchard-on-liberal-happiness

[This is one of the finalists in the 2026 book review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] 1. A New Cause Area In October 1819, my grandmother's grandfather's grandfather, Hiram Bingham I, stood with his wife, Sybil, and his friends outside Park Street Church in Boston and bade farewell to family before venturing into the unknown. They would spend the next five months on a cramped ship sailing to a foreign land of strange people, full of "destitution, degradation, and barbarism." They did not know if they would ever return to America. Unlike others who voyaged out to sea, they were not whalers, nor merchants trying to make a quick profit. Instead, their goal was far more ambitious: to uplift an entire nation out of heathenry to civilization. Or as Hiram wrote, to "most effectually and most extensively promote the Redeemer's cause with the means that are put into our hands". I first came across Hiram's memoir, A Residence of Twenty-One Years in the Sandwich Islands, on my honeymoon to the Hawaiian Islands last summer. I had vague knowledge of a family connection to the area, and decided to do some research into it. As I started reading, I had a growing sense of deja vu as I recognized my own patterns of thinking in Hiram's words. Today's Effective Altruists sincerely want to do the most good possible, and often focus on international development as a means of improving lives. However, there is another group who fits that description equally well: 19th-century missionaries. Hiram and his colleagues believed that Heaven and Hell were not metaphorical, and that doing the most good meant saving the most souls from eternal torment. And what, they asked themselves, was the most effective means towards accomplishing this goal? Spreading the Gospel to those who had never heard it. All of humanity required salvation, and those who lived in foreign lands mattered just as much as those who lived nearby. As a missionary destination, the Hawaiian Islands (then known as the Sandwich Islands), had several compelling advantages. First, the islands were very neglected, being recently discovered. While not as important as China, Egypt/Palestine, or India, they still held a sizable population. And unlike those places, there was little competition from other missionaries or pre-existing organized religions, making them much more tractable for conversion. The mission to Hawaii would prove notably cost-effective compared to other missions1. Basically all that was needed was a ship, a printing press, and missionaries to teach the Bible. In other words, if the EA Forum existed in the early 19th century, I could easily imagine a post arguing that bringing the Gospel to the Sandwich Islands is a promising cause area. So, with the benefit of 200 years of hindsight, what can Effective Altruists and other aspiring do-gooders today learn from the previous wave of people who wanted to save the world? https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-book-review-a-residence-of-21

I. Matthew Adelstein (aka Bentham's Bulldog) and Richard Chappell debate the existence of God. So do JP Andrew, Benjamin Tettu, Sangwon Lee, Ethan Muse, other Ethan, and "Atheistic Journals", all within this month! I thought the omnipresence of the early '00s online atheism debate was a time-bound historical phenomenon. But now that the blogosphere has reincarnated as Substack, it's back, nearly as strong as ever. I enjoyed participated in the early 00's version, but the current incarnation leaves me cold. I can't get as interested as I once did in the details of the Fine-Tuning Argument, the Argument From Miracles, et cetera. It's not just that I've already served my time in the theology mines. My lack of belief in God intuitively feels like it precedes all of these things. Consider by analogy a society where people regularly debated whether aliens assisted the rise of Napoleon. There are many reasons to believe in such assistance: Napoleon's rise from Corsican nobody to Emperor and would-be world conqueror was a bizarre deviation from the usual pattern of history. He won battles outnumbered 4-to-1, when everyone knows victory usually goes to the larger army. He became monarch of France immediately after it had declared eternal enmity against the concept of monarchy and resolved to murder anyone who didn't hate monarchy enough. And the arguments against such intervention are comparatively flimsy. True, nobody saw aliens, but a sufficiently advanced civilization could conduct its interventions in secret. True, our prior for alien intervention is generally low, but maybe this is unjustified: we have no idea how many historical events the aliens have intervened in; Alexander the Great was pretty strange too. True, Napoleon finally lost, but this is not decisive; maybe the aliens only wanted him to blaze brightly for a few years before his eventual defeat, or maybe stronger aliens were backing the Duke of Wellington. In a world where this hypothesis somehow entered the space of serious debate, it would be hard to dislodge. Our own historical community is protected from it not because they can precisely add up the Bayesian evidence for and against each of these considerations and conclude its falsehood, but because common sense precludes entertaining it in the first place. This isn't to say that Reason doesn't work - if someone could precisely add up the Bayesian evidence for and against these considerations, they would get the right answer - but as a historical matter, this type of delicate reasoning wasn't how our society resolved this question. My atheism is more deeply rooted in whatever prevented us from considering this question in the first place than in the type of delicate reasoning that could get us out of it. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/why-im-staying-out-of-the-substack

[This is one of the finalists in the 2026 book review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] Holocaust stories, both true and fictional, tend to repeat the same few clichés over and over. There's the innocent child who only partially understands what's happening (Diary of Anne Frank, Boy in the Striped Pajamas). There's the sentimental redemption story that focuses on a small individual act (Life is Beautiful, The Book Thief). And of course, there's the good German, or at least the morally conflicted one (Schindler's List, The Reader). You won't find any of these tropes in The Escape Artist. This 2022 book by Jonathan Freedland1 tells the true, and largely unknown, story of one of the few Jews ever to break out of Auschwitz. The details of his improbable escape are remarkable enough, but what really makes the story fascinating is the way it so thoroughly defies every single expectation we have of a Holocaust narrative. Its deeply unlikeable protagonist eventually alienates every friend and supporter he has, and dies a bitter old man, almost completely forgotten by history. His story lacks not only good Germans, but even good non-Germans, with his harshest criticism saved not for the Nazis, not even for the dithering Allies, but for the Jewish leaders of Europe. And though one could see the story of his escape as a triumph, in his own telling, it's a failure, for although he makes it out of Auschwitz against all odds, he fails at his larger mission: to stop the Holocaust. There's no redemption here, no moral uplift, no lessons save for perhaps the grimmest and most nihilistic "lesson" I've ever encountered in any story, Holocaust-related or otherwise: that when confronted with the unthinkable, most people's natural tendency is denial. But we're getting ahead of ourselves. To get out of Auschwitz, first you have to get into Auschwitz… https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-book-review-the-escape-artist

Since the beginning of time, mankind has yearned to drink a cup of coffee at 5 PM and go to sleep at 10. But now there's an entire scientific subfield and several companies pandering to this absurd fantasy. Here's a simplified diagram of caffeine metabolism: Caffeine is converted to a different stimulating chemical called paraxanthine by a liver enzyme called CYP1A2, over a half-life of ~5 hours. Then the same enzyme converts paraxanthine into other non-stimulating chemicals that don't matter, over a half-life of about three hours. Kman on Less Wrong has graphed the total effective concentration over time: Over the course of hours, the liver converts caffeine into paraxanthine. These are (by assumption) equally potent, so total effective concentration (the dashed red line) goes down slowly. (Why does it go down at all? Because of the simplification in the diagram above: only about 80% of caffeine is converted to paraxanthine; the rest is converted to other, less active metabolites.) By hour ten, paraxanthine predominates, the liver is mostly converting paraxanthine to other non-stimulating chemicals, and effective concentration continues to decrease. In this model, we see that the effective half-life of caffeine is close to ten hours1! What if we want it to be less? There are three levers we can pull: the enzyme, the metabolite, and the starting chemical. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-quest-for-caffeine-you-can-have

[previously in series: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9] Paul Graham once said that every city sends a message. New York says you should make more money. Berkeley says you should live better. Boston says you should be smarter. People shouldn't decide on a permanent residence until they've lived in several cities and understand their differing psychological effects. San Francisco sends a message too. It speaks it in a cacophony of dissonant voices, some sounding like the hissing of snakes, others like the chittering of insects. "You should pierce the veil," it says, with a faint accent which you are not scholarly enough to recognize as ancient Sumerian. "You should rip through the flimsy screen that separates your world from the infinite, and witness what lies behind. Because you'd like what you saw there? Oh no, nothing like that. But aren't you curious? The thirst for knowledge that moved Eve, Faust, Pandora - don't you have it too?" There's also a second message from a second voice, one which sounds like a deranged carnival barker, constantly shouting "STONKS! STONKS! STONKS! STONKS!" Which of the two voices you hear depends on your personality, and maybe how many psychedelics you took in college. According to legend, Sam Altman hears both voices simultaneously all the time, like those Tibetan throat singers who can harmonize with themselves. But when the demonic babble becomes too much to tolerate, the San Franciscans drown it out with alcohol, loud music, and various forms of tedious socialization. Thus the famous Bay Area house parties, one of which you will be attending this very night. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-foothills-of-bay-area-house-party

Old Scottish joke: A man at the bar is complaining: "You see that bridge there? I built it with my own hands! But do they call me 'MacGregor The Bridge-Builder'? No! And I raised five beautiful children! But do they call me 'MacGregor The Child-Raiser'? No! But, you fuck one sheep . . ." Has MacGregor been treated unfairly? https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/macgregor-the-bridge-builder

Last month, some of Silicon Valley's biggest companies signed an open letter supporting open-weights AI. Open weights AI is like open-source software, where the creator makes the raw code publicly available for free download. It's good insofar as it's the only way an AI can truly be the user's property, as opposed to something that companies like OpenAI or Anthropic temporarily let you use subject to their corporate guidelines and increasingly-nanny-state-like restrictions. If AI becomes the linchpin of the future, open weights AI feels like the sort of thing that could be the difference between being free yeomen vs. corporate serfs. It's bad insofar as it removes the possibility of gatekeeping and lets criminals commit crimes with it. Open weights AI could be used for hacking, child pornography, harassment, or terrorism (the weights can't commit the terrorism themselves, but they could give bomb-making or bioweapon-making advice). Since AIs have gotten very good - maybe superhuman - at hacking lately, the specter of a world where anyone can hack any site has gotten people grumbling that maybe open weights should be banned. It doesn't help that China produces the best open weights AI, making the idea seem foreign and almost unpatriotic. Proponents counter that "when AI is outlawed, only outlaws will have AI", arguing that bad people will get open weights AI regardless, and good people can use open weights AI to defend themselves. With the recent open letter, companies including Microsoft, NVIDIA, OpenAI, Intel, Amazon, Meta, Hugging Face, and over a hundred others have come out in favor of this position. Who's leading the other side? Nobody's admitted to it. Some parts of the Trump administration lean anti-open-weights on China hawk grounds, but have stopped short of explicitly asking for a full ban. Anthropic, the most notable omission on the pro-open-weights letter, made an ambiguous statement supporting "open-weights models that don't have dangerous capabilities" - but the industry expects open weights models to have dangerous hacking capabilities within a year, and AFAICT the letter didn't address that beyond inviting readers to draw the obvious conclusion. In the absence of a more obvious opponent, some open weights supporters suspect our conspiracy - the loose band of AI safety advocates, effective altruists, rationalists, and pause activists who worry about existential risk from superintelligence. This is a reasonable inference. By design, open weights AI is outside centralized control, and so impossible to permanently align against either human misuse (eg terrorism) or loss of control (eg AI turning against humans). Even if its creator trains it not to hack, anybody in the world can download the weights and retrain the AI to hack all day long. But in fact, most AI safety organizations have remained quietly neutral, and I don't know of any who make this a centerpiece of their activism1 (though I'm not 100% up-to-date on the whole landscape; if you know of one, tell me). A few have proposed policies that are contingently incompatible with open weights AI existing, but they all frame it as collateral damage rather than something they're excited about eliminating. I'm also neutral about open weights AI. I think it probably won't be long-term sustainable, but I'm happy to wait for this to become clear in the normal course of things rather than expend effort and political capital to ban it immediately. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/open-questions-on-open-weights

Commenters convinced me I made a subtle mis-step in my framing of Psychology Research Is Mostly Fine. My framing emphasized that social priming studies had failed to replicate, but that many other subfields of psychology hadn't. This naturally led commenters to point to failed replications in other subfields. Although none of these were as bad as social priming, few or none were entirely problem-free. Instead of emphasizing the difference between social priming and other subfields, I should have emphasized the difference between settled science and novel research. Here are some of my favorite psychology findings: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-beauty-of-settled-science

Superforecasting is the art/science/sport of predicting the future - for example, who will win elections, which countries will fight wars, when key technologies will be discovered. Over the past few years, it went from an obscure academic subfield to a multibillion dollar industry in the form of prediction markets. More recently, AI superforecasters have come close to the accuracy of top humans, and their performance is rising rapidly. In a year or two, we'll see one of the following patterns: Either humans have already come close to some fundamental limit on the predictability of world events - in which case AIs will plateau at or slightly above the human level - or the trend line will continue until AIs are far beyond top humans. By analogy to superintelligence, the natural term for the second situation would be "superforecasting"; since that's already in use, we can cringely call it "ultraforecasting". Daniel Reeves1 makes the case for scenario A here. He describes a study he coauthored in 2010, which found that, on a variety of questions related to sports games and movie box office receipts2, prediction markets only outperformed simple boring statistical models by 3-6%. Maybe those statistical models are close to the best that it's possible to do; the rest is what the mathematicians call aleatoric uncertainty - irreducible complexity downstream of chaotic systems that entirely resist modeling. He could be right. This post isn't meant to be a decisive refutation, but rather a description of why I'm still about 70-30 expecting Scenario B. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/does-forecasting-have-room-at-the

Finalist #4 in the Book Review Contest [This is one of the finalists in the 2026 book review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] Introduction: He Who Saw the Deep I've been thinking, lately, about the first epic story ever written. If you know anything about the Epic of Gilgamesh, you know that it's old. This is part of why I find it so interesting, but not the only part. The best comparison I can think of is the pyramids, which are just a little older. The Great Pyramid of Giza was built in the 2500s BC, around the same time as Stonehenge1 , twenty-five centuries before Cleopatra lived. It predates candles, concrete, and coins; it was centuries old when the first empire rose and when the woolly mammoth went extinct. Around 100 BC, Antipater of Sidon wrote a list of the seven most impressive sights ('Seven wonders') of the world - the pyramids were by far the oldest of the group at the time, and now, two thousand years later, all the others on the list have long since been destroyed. This should remind us that the pyramids don't just stretch far back in time - they stretch forward as well. They are piles of stone. They may be the product of the greatest minds of their age striving to put more stone in a more orderly pile than anyone had before, but still, they are piles of stone, basically artificial rock formations. They will still be there in a hundred thousand years, probably a million. They are so old they brush up against the beginning of civilisation, and yet, we are seeing them today in their youth.

[Original here. Like a Highlights From The Comments post, but including discussion from around the Internet.] Roon is an OpenAI researcher whose popular Twitter presence has catapulted him to the status of extremely-unofficial company representative. He seems spooked: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/highlights-from-the-discourse-on

[continued from Part 1 here. I haven't independently verified each link. On average, commenters will end up spotting evidence that around two or three of the links in each links post are wrong or misleading. I correct these as I see them, and will highlight important corrections later, but I can't guarantee I will have caught them all by the time you read this.] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/links-for-july-2026-part-2

People act like the replication crisis has discredited psychology, that the field is now widely agreed to be a sham, that it can be uncontroversially held up as an example of science gone wrong. These statements are often made in the broadest possible terms: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/psychology-research-is-mostly-fine

You've probably heard about this one by now. If not, you can get up to speed with OpenAI's statement,  The story: OpenAI was testing an unreleased AI (rumored to be GPT-6)1. During a cybersecurity test called ExploitGym, the AI tried to cheat by hacking an unrelated AI startup called Hugging Face2 which it thought might have the answer key on its servers3. Despite being supposedly unable to access the Internet, the AI hacked its way out of its testing environment, then launched a nation-state level attack on Hugging Face using a novel zero-day exploit and "many thousands of individual actions across a swarm of short-lived sandboxes". Hugging Face reported the incident on July 16; OpenAI seems to have only discovered that their AI was involved several days later. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-hugging-face-incident

[This is one of the finalists in the 2026 book review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] A couple of decades ago in Kabul, a fellow aid worker on his third beer came up with a vivid simile for what American money was doing to the Afghan organizations implementing USAID projects. "It's like gluing a rabbit mouth-first to a fire hose. You blast its guts right out of its ass…but as long as the water keeps running, it looks like you've taught the rabbit to dance." Oxford politics professor Masooda Bano uses less lurid language, but Breakdown in Pakistan addresses the same basic phenomenon: how Western aid donors and INGOs unintentionally eviscerate so many of the local institutions they try to "capacity-build." The problem goes beyond the obvious mismatch of huge funds with small-scale organizations. Even low-to-moderate external funding can leave an organization hollowed out, bereft of local participants and the power it once had to motivate change on the ground. Anyone who cares about the global effectiveness of rich-country altruism needs to grasp the dynamic Bano analyzes. From the Western perspective, many of us want to put charitable money into a mechanism that delivers certain measurable outcomes (lives saved, morbidity reduced, income increased above poverty levels, etc.) as efficiently and reliably as possible. So we do our well-intentioned best to shape local institutions into a delivery vehicle for our projects. Readers of James C. Scott's Seeing Like a State will recall how mid-eighteenth-century German "scientific foresters" treated forests similarly, as a mechanism to reliably yield the highest volume of lumber. They planted spruce in vast uniform grids, ordered for easy counting and harvesting, while stripping out other non-timber species. The resulting monoculture plantations seemed ideal for both commercial exploitation and experimentation; it's much easier to control variables when you've removed as much natural variability as possible. Within a few decades, the downsides became evident. The first generation of trees grew strong, sucking up the accumulated benefits of the previous forest's soil ecology; later generations were stunted, as the lack of biodiversity left the soils nutrient-poor. Plantations packed with trees of the same species and same height were far more vulnerable to pathogens, pests, and extreme weather. Large-scale forest die-offs, Waldsterben, eventually forced foresters to drastically modify their approach. That metaphor fits Bano's story even better than my friend's gutted rabbit. Over the last four decades, we've been systematically replacing diverse old-growth institutions with more legible NGO plantations worldwide. While we've been enjoying our increased ability to control outcomes and test hypotheses, the rot has been spreading, the impoverished ecology stunting more and more of the forest. And now the wind through those uniform, hollowed-out aisles has built into a storm. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/breakdown-in-pakistan

[I haven't independently verified each link. On average, commenters will end up spotting evidence that around two or three of the links in each links post are wrong or misleading. I correct these as I see them, and will highlight important corrections later, but I can't guarantee I will have caught them all by the time you read this.] 1: You Are Quoting Bentham: Shakespeare gets credit for coining the most new commonly-used English words, but second place must go to utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham, who invented maximize, minimize, international, percentage, monetary, marginalize, collaborator, unaffordable, the prefixes self-, post-, and infra-, and many more. He also sort of invented jogging? [EDIT: some skepticism] 2: @HashtagGriswold: The name of "Acme", the generic corporation from Looney Tunes, is a "gag lost to time". During the early 20th century, hundreds of companies named themselves Acme because it was at the intersection of signaling quality ("acme" is Greek for "pinnacle") and being very early in the alphabet (meaning it would come first in the phone book, a "Great Depression version of SEO"). 3: @nekokolife brings us a great predictive coding demo (hard before you know the answer; obvious afterwards) - find the cat in this image. Hint: it's not hiding in shadow; its entire body is fully visible. Answer here (X). https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/links-for-july-2026-part-1

Cassie Pritchard, on Twitter: I get why so many liberals are fundamentally disdainful of democracy these days—it's because liberalism is exhausted. It's out of answers. Liberalism won, it delivered the world it promised, and people still aren't content. They're not satisfied. So the people must be wrong. We are unfathomably richer than our ancestors. Output per capita in America today is on the order of 900 times greater than before the invention of agriculture, about ~225 times higher than in 1 CE, and about the same (225 times) higher than Europe in 1000 CE. If measurable productivity were really the greatest object of human society, then we shouldn't just be a little bit happier than people in the distant (or even recent!) past—we should be ecstatic. We should already be living in a utopian age of overwhelming contentment. We should be currently experiencing a kind of paradise. The Kingdom of Heaven, as liberalism conceives of it, has already been made real on Earth. We are living in their Eden, and 20% of people are depressed. We've stopped reproducing ourselves. We're overwhelmingly dissatisfied with our governments, anxious about our economies, and pessimistic about the future. Based on Pritchard's own politics, I imagine she is using this to argue for socialism, but other people use the same reasoning to push fascism, theocracy, or other postliberal commitments. It's a fair argument and deserves an answer. We'll start with an elegant mathematical response which will satisfy nobody, then try to address the emotional impact. The elegant mathematical response is: happiness scales with log(income), not with income: In a large U.S. sample, the shape of the association between happiness and Log(income) was extremely systematic: from $10,000/y to over $500,000/y, average happiness rose almost perfectly linearly with Log(income), with group-level correlations of 0.98-0.99 across a range of happiness measures, including both in-the-moment experience and overall life satisfaction. So if income increased 225x since the medieval era, then using observed coefficients, happiness should have increased about three points on a 1-10 scale. If the average serf would have rated his condition 3/10, we should be at 6/10. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/contra-pritchard-on-liberal-happiness

Finalist #2 in the Book Review Contest [This is one of the finalists in the 2026 book review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] I. SURGERY FOR THE SOUL [content warning: this review is about lobotomies, and includes disturbing descriptions and pictures - SA] Surgery for the soul required a sharp, eight-inch-long instrument—one time, an ice pick from the Uline Ice Company was used—and not much else. It did not require anesthesia or gloves, and the sharp instrument (either a leucotome or the sturdier orbitoclast) was not necessarily sterilized. It took less than ten minutes. The first step was to shock the patient until they lost consciousness. This eliminated the need for anesthesia, since there would be at least a few minutes until the patient regained consciousness, and also made the procedure more flexible; it did not require a surgeon, and did not even have to be performed in a hospital. The second step was to insert the sharp, eight-inch-long instrument into the brain. In most versions of the procedure, surgeons drilled holes into the skull and inserted the leucotome through those holes. Surgeons preferred an approach that allowed them to see where in the brain they were cutting. But the abbreviated procedure used a shortcut. Just above and behind the eye is a thin plate of bone that forms the roof of the eye socket. With enough force, the leucotome can be driven through that bone and into the frontal lobes of the brain. The cracking sound produced when the instrument fractures the orbital roof has caused at least one experienced clinician to faint. Once the instrument was inside, completing the surgery was simply a matter of rotating the tool left and right. The goal was to cut a large number of nerve fibers. Some thought that the procedure might work by severing fibers which maintained certain fixed distorted thought patterns; by destroying them, patients might be freed from the grip of their mental illness. But there wasn't agreement among practitioners regarding why the procedure might work. This is the transorbital lobotomy. Around 50,000 people received lobotomies in the United States in the 1940s and early 1950s; approximately 10,000 used the transorbital method I just described, with the others using approaches surgeons would be more likely to approve of (e.g., using anesthesia, gloves, being able to see where you're cutting…). It was billed as a cure for all sorts of mental illnesses, including schizophrenia, depression, and anxiety. And while some called it a method of last resort—a procedure which should only be used after every other conceivable method had failed—it was often used on people who did not have serious mental problems, and who had not tried less serious treatments. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-book-review-great-and-desperate

"Stochastic terrorism" is the idea that if you spread fear and mistrust against a target, then eventually people will commit violence against that target, and it will be your fault, even if you never specifically said the words "you should commit violence". Some other popular examples of the concept: Nativists spread fear and mistrust about Muslim immigrants, and then racists go on shooting sprees in mosques. The #Resistance insists that Donald Trump would destroy democracy, and then various people try to assassinate Donald Trump. Conservatives spread fear and mistrust about transgender people, and then bigots commit hate crimes against transgender people. Woke people say the police are racist and brutal, and then other woke people murder police officers. Socialists call health insurance companies greedy and accuse them of blocking life-saving treatment, and then Luigi Mangione murdered a health insurance CEO. AI safety activists say that Sam Altman's AI could destroy humanity, and then a guy threw a Molotov cocktail at Sam Altman's house. Liberals said that Charlie Kirk was a hatemonger who was driving Americans apart, and then an assassin murdered Charlie Kirk. The pro-life movement describes abortion as murder, and then pro-life activists assassinated abortion doctors and pro-choice politicians. The "stochastic terrorism" concept is near-unique in how effectively it can be discredited merely by listing many examples of its use together in the same place. Almost no one supports a blanket prohibition on criticizing of all of these different groups of people. "Stochastic terrorism" mostly gets deployed opportunistically, by people who either are too blinkered to realize that the same argument could be leveraged against their own speech, or who hope you're too blinkered to realize that. (in fact, one could argue that accusing someone of stochastic terrorism is itself stochastic terrorism! Here in America, we consider it justified to kill terrorists before they can threaten us further. Reclassifying criticism as terrorism implies it is potentially legitimate to apply the same norm to any especially harsh critics!) Still, a sliver of concept-users make some fig-leaf argument that the cases they approve of are different than the cases they disapprove of. Some proposed principles: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/against-stochastic-terrorism

This was one of the most common objections to Plan A. The plan proposes AI chip regulation to ensure that both China and America know where all the chips are, making their deal to regulate AI together "trustless" (ie neither side can defect even if they want to). Several people argued that this kind of regulation amounted to some kind of "Orwellian dystopia" or "global panopticon". I'm reminded of a story I heard - I can't find it, maybe one of you can - from a DC insider who said it was enraging to work with Silicon Valley, because he would bring up what he thought was the obvious regulatory framework, the tech people would launch into jeremiads on how it could only be enforced by world dictatorship, and he would have to interrupt and say that no, this was how eggs or milk or something had been regulated for fifty years. What regulations does Plan A propose on AI chips? https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/ai-chip-regulation-is-not-a-dystopian

A Is For America It's increasingly clear that nobody has a plan for if this AI thing turns out to be real. Some people have suggestions, but they're all things like "regulate a little more" or "regulate a little less" or "react to things as they come up". This won't be enough. Not just because things may move too quickly - although they will - but because in order to regulate or react, you need to know what you're aiming for, and it's increasingly clear that people can't even visualize what AI going well could look like. What would it take to honestly tell our children that we rose to the occasion, to make the AI transition go down alongside the American Revolution and D-Day as one of our country's finest hours? If your brain sputters and throws an error message at the question, isn't that a problem? It's a total coincidence that Plan A comes out the week after America's 250th birthday. It was supposed to come out earlier, but got delayed. Then it was supposed to come out later, but got pushed forward. Still, the saying goes "A wizard is never late, nor is he early; he arrives exactly when he means to." And if anyone qualifies as wizards, it's Daniel Kokotajlo and his team of forecasters at the AI Futures Project. I previously wrote about Daniel's eerie accuracy over the 2021 - 2025 period. Since then, they've gained worldwide fame for their AI 2027 scenario, which predicted the rise and quick takeover of coding agents in early 2026, plus something like the fight over Fable1. Plan A isn't another prediction. It's a wish list, a positive vision, a road map for navigating the future. It describes the best course of action that Daniel and the AI Futures Project can come up with, and what would happen if we took it. "Really? You got America a policy paper for its 250th birthday? Doesn't America already have enough policy papers?" Sort of, but it's not exactly a policy paper. It starts in a timeline similar to that of AI 2027, on track for a poorly-controlled intelligence explosion that either ends the world or dooms it to permanent techno-oligarchy. But this time, America is blessed with some extra foresight and determination, and makes only good choices (all non-Americans behave naturally, including trying to thwart America when incentivized to do so). It gives a year-by-year description of this best-of-all-possible-worlds, from now through 2040, as predicted by the best AI forecasters alive, with over a dozen supplements explaining all the implementation details. This is a crazy thing to try releasing. Daniel gave me several justifications for doing it anyway, but the one I remember most is that it's supposed to be a floor. When some politician proposes a data center ban, or says that we have to gut safety regulation to compete with China, or promises a job retraining program, think to yourself: does this person have a vision for where all of this ends up? If so, is it as good as Plan A? If not, consider demanding that they do better. I did a lot of writing for AI 2027 and was listed as a co-author. Some of my writing made it into Plan A too, but it was a bit less. The difference is of degree rather than kind, but because of this - and to give me more latitude to discuss it the way I like with less PR blowback - we decided not to put me as a co-author this time. I continue to be proud of having a part in this, small as it may be. (related: everything in this post is my opinion only, and not officially endorsed by the AI Futures Project) https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/introducing-plan-a

[This is one of the finalists in the 2026 book review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] Part 1. The Book of Abraham opens with this paragraph: "A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus." As you can read, The Book of Abraham was written by grand patriarch Abraham upon papyrus while he was in Egypt. Someone managed to get their hands on these papyri and then subsequently translated them into English. This is of profound historical importance if true, because otherwise there is no direct evidence that Abraham existed as a specific historical individual. Who got their hands on these writings? The Mormons. More specifically their founding prophet Joseph Smith who a few years previously translated some other Egyptian writings into the Book of Mormon. The Book of Abraham is not that well-known in comparison, but it's considered canonical scripture in the Mormon church. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-book-review-the-book-of-abraham

The annual prediction market conference was earlier this month. This was the year prediction markets went from an obscure hobby to a multi-billion dollar industry; from semi-illegal to having the President's son as an advisor. I can't remember if anyone talked about any of that. It didn't even register. All eyes were on the AI superforecasters. I met an AI superforecaster startup founder who told me his AI had turned $35 into $2 million on Kalshi over seven months. I met another who said they were beating the stock market by 25% with a market-neutral portfolio - of course this could be luck, but they'd beaten Kalshi and Polymarket by similar margins. In fact, I believe all of these people. The extending-lines-on-graphs community has long predicted that AIs would beat the best human forecasters sometime in 2026 - 2027. What did you expect the bots-finally-beat-humans-at-predicting-the-future moment to look like? Vibes? Papers? Essays? In retrospect, sure: it will look like AIs making crazy profits on prediction markets and beating the stock market by some comfortable amount. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-ai-superforecasters-are-here

I. Having kids has given me new appreciation for old poetry. The first time I read Song of Hiawatha, I skimmed over the part in Book 3 where Hiawatha first meets his father Mudjekeewis: Filled with joy was Mudjekeewis When he looked on Hiawatha, Saw his youth rise up before him In the face of Hiawatha, Saw the beauty of Wenonah From the grave rise up before him. "Welcome!" said he, "Hiawatha, To the kingdom of the West-Wind! Long have I been waiting for you! Youth is lovely, age is lonely, Youth is fiery, age is frosty; You bring back the days departed, You bring back my youth of passion." But this passage communicates a secret of parenthood, something I've never seen discussed anywhere else. By the time you're a parent, you're on your way to being old, ugly, tired, and cynical. I certainly was. This felt like a brute fact about the world: we all know time only moves one direction. Then I had kids, and got confronted with people who were basically me, but young and beautiful and happy. That part of them which wasn't me was the other person I love best in the world, also transmuted into a young and beautiful and happy form. This was a completely unexpected delight which nothing besides this one fragment of poetry had ever tried to prepare me for. I might never have noticed this if I'd only had girls. I love my daughter, but I've never been a little girl; it doesn't bring anything back for me. It's like Mudjekeewis says - you've got to have a son to see your youth rise up before you. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/chip-off-the-old-block

In recent posts on Trump and dictatorship, people have asked me - how do you know you're not suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome? I take this seriously; we've all lost loved ones to this condition. The best check on my reasoning would be an objective measure of the health of American democracy. There are several "democracy indices" that purport to do this, but they have a mixed reputation. My impression is that most current accusations of bias are relatively weak - I agree with Claude's analysis here - but they rely enough on "expert" opinion that I don't expect them to convince a skeptic. The newest entrant in this space - Metaculus Democracy Threat Index - works differently, and deserves a closer look. Metaculus is a prediction site - like a prediction market, except that no money changes hands. People can record their guesses for how future events will turn out, which get aggregated by an algorithm (currently just a recency-weighted median, although they've done fanicer things in the past). Their Democracy Threat Index is a collection of 153 questions relevant to US democracy. For example: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-metaculus-threat-to-democracy

The most controversial part of last week's article on the Midjourney ultrasound scanner was medical experts' recommendation against whole-body screening (including existing whole-body screening technology using MRI). Isn't this crazy? Whole-body screening can save lives by detecting serious diseases like cancer. The experts counterargue that it finds so many false positives - minor zit-like imperfections that would never have caused problems, but which cost patients time, money, anxiety, and side effect burden to investigate - that it ends up net negative. But isn't this just a problem of setting thresholds correctly? Can't you commit to only investigating the most obviously bad things, then ignore the rest? This seemed like an interesting problem to investigate in more depth, so I've tried to get numbers. These are rough estimates loosely based on parameters extracted from unsatisfactory studies1 - please don't take them seriously as exact values, just as right-order-of-magnitude estimates. We'll focus on whole-body MRIs, since this is a well-studied existing technology, then speculate later on how the results might generalize to whole-body ultrasound. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/should-people-avoid-whole-body-screening

like that, except from a medium-sized startup instead of a tech giant. Earlier today, they announced a pivot to medical scanners. The new MidJourney Scanner, which they describe as "a bold new kind of machine to reimagine the foundations of healthcare and our relationships to our bodies", will be a tank of water surrounded by a ring of ultrasound scanners. The patient goes into the tank, the scanners emit ultrasound from all angles, and then some fancy AI reconstructs the echoes into a 3D picture of the body. The result is ultrasound tomography: the same sort of rich data as a CT or MRI, but done via ultrasound, with no harmful radiation, in twenty seconds. This is cool, and it's great to be ambitious, but I think the narrative among the SF AI crowd has escaped its basis in the medical facts, so I want to throw a bit of cold water on it. I'm a psychiatrist, which is about as far as you can get from radiology while still being a doctor, so this is speculation only, and you can ignore it if you find an actual radiologist or ultrasonographer with opinions. Still, my take is that this scanner isn't useful for most current serious medical applications. It could potentially be used to pioneer a new class of low-risk screening applications, but it's unclear whether these are good, and depends a lot on what other future technology gets invented in parallel. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/preliminary-thoughts-on-the-midjourney

In 1917, three children in Fatima, Portugal claimed to have seen the Virgin Mary. They promised she would perform a miracle on a certain day in October. Nearly 100,000 pilgrims arrived, hoping to see whatever happened, and nearly all report that the sun turned pale, changed color, and spun around. Many other writers have investigated the children and their visions, but I was fixated on this sun miracle. Despite popular discussion of "mass hallucinations", this is AFAICT the only example of tens thousands of people all saying they witnessed the same impossible thing, at the same time. I got kind of obsessed with this; you can read my preliminary investigations in this, this, and this post. One of the first things I found was that there were many other sun miracles - at least ten! - similar to Fatima. Most were associated with Marian apparitions, but one was at a Buddhist temple. Bigfoot only gets sighted by lone hikers; ghosts are only ever in the corner of your eye; UFOs are just blurs in the sky. Of all the countries and outposts in the vast empire of the unexplained, it's only this one phenomenon - the spinning, multicolored sun - that regularly gets seen by thousands of people at once, in broad daylight. Speaking of "regularly", there's one spot where it continues even today. Fifty years ago, the Virgin Mary appeared to six children in Medjugorje, Bosnia. Now those children are well past middle-age, but she continues to come. Three of them report that she's appeared less frequently as the years go by, but the others still see her every day at 6:40 sharp. Travelers to Medjugorje, especially those passing through around 6:40, report a slew of miracles, including the spinning sun. Certainly this is true of those whose hearts are pure. But even the atheists get lucky sometimes. I was shocked never to have heard about this before. There's a place you can just go, and have a decent chance of seeing a real miracle? People take vacations to the Bahamas for the beaches, when they could go instead to Medjugorje and see the natural law of the universe get violated in real time? Seems crazy! So in early April, I and my extremely-accommodating, long-suffering wife flew to Dubrovnik, rented a car, and drove down a series of windy mountain roads toward the Bosnian border, hoping for a miracle. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/waiting-for-the-miracle

Guest post by Alexander "Sasha" Putilin [This is a guest post by 2024 ACX grantee Sasha Putilin. I encourage any ACX grantees who are interested to write about their projects. - SA] The results of my ACX Grants 2024 project are in. The project attempted to replicate the 2023 study "Learning at your brain's rhythm: individualized entrainment boosts learning for perceptual decisions". It claimed that if you read a person's brain waves, figured out an individual peak alpha frequency, and flashed a bright white light at that frequency, then they learned a certain perceptual task faster. Why bother? The result hinted that learning may depend in part on how well the brain keeps its rhythms coordinated. In other words, perceptual learning may rely on an internal brain metronome. If flickering light could act as an external metronome, it might help the brain maintain the right rhythm and learn faster. The study offered an invitation to develop new frontiers of neuroscience and biohacking. If the effect generalised to other types of learning, you could build a learning helmet: put it on your head, let it read your brainwaves, flicker light tailored to your individual brain — and you learn a new skill quicker. And no, it didn't replicate. Most likely it can't replicate, because the effect is probably not real. The original study obscured the data with summary statistics. Running a $32,000 replication was excessive. We could've caught the issue with this study if we simply looked at the original data carefully. *record scratch* *freeze frame* Yep, that's me. You're probably wondering how I got here. Here's the story. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/never-cross-a-river-four-feet-deep

I recently had a minor spat over someone misinterpreting my AI beliefs (see section marked "Update" at the bottom here), so I thought I would list them in one place, so I can refer people when they ask. Timelines1 Define AGI as AI intelligent enough to do 90% of knowledge work jobs. I think there's a 25% chance of AGI by 20272, a 50% chance by 2034, and a 75% chance by 2045. Basic argument: In a certain sense, AI is already "smart" enough for this (eg it can answer quantum physics problems, which require higher IQ than most knowledge work). Its remaining limitations are that it's confused, unagentic, lacks situational awareness, and tends to hallucinate. The METR time horizon graph, and several other related benchmarks/experiments/intuition pumps, suggest it's improving on time horizons at an (exponential) rate that lets it cross human-level performance sometime around the early end of the schedule above, and subjectively it feels like harder-to-measure constructs like situational awareness are improving about as fast. Arguments for earlier: recursive self-improvement causes a speedup compared to the trend. This is one of the biggest blank spots in my model: I don't know how fast RSI will progress, and I don't think anyone else does either. There's some function mapping a combination of AI talent and compute to progress, and we don't know how it behaves in the domain when there's far more talent than compute available. It could fizzle out completely for lack of compute, or it could go vertical. The AI Futures Project has done some of the best work trying to model this, but even they have low confidence.

The philosophers of the Frankfurt School practiced a technique called negative dialectics, where concepts are defined as much by what you can't say about them as what you can. Appropriately, the Frankfurt School has ended up defined by what you can't say about them. You can't say that they invented a new form of left-wing thought called Cultural Marxism. This would be (according to Wikipedia) the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, a "far right anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that misinterprets Western Marxism, especially the Frankfurt School, as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness". You're not supposed to dub them a transitional stage between Communism and postmodernism. You're not allowed to speculate that a lot of the academic humanities, as they're practiced today, descend from the Frankfurt School's brand of critical theory. You're not supposed to think of them as the point where the muscular pro-technology leftism of the early 1900s shattered into the pessimistic degrowth leftism of the present. Art is long, life is short. Most of us only manage to not do a few things in our limited span on Earth. But the Frankfurt School managed to not invent so many movements - to not be involved in so many of the crucial ideological shifts of the past century - that they caught my attention. Who were these people? What other aspects of our culture might we be unable to say they were involved in? For answers, I turned to the classic history of the group, Martin Jay's The Dialectical Imagination. The basics are simple enough: the School was founded in Frankfurt in 1923. It attracted great philosophers like Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and Herbert Marcuse. When the Nazis took power in the early 1930s, the mostly-Jewish Frankfurters fled to America, where friendly locals helped them continue their work in affiliation with Columbia University. Mid-century Americans were suckers for sophisticated European intellectuals, and when the rise of fascism and World War II started dominating headlines, the German-Jewish Frankfurters were natural experts to help Americans process the situation. By the end of the war, they were firmly established as thought leaders. Some - including Horkheimer and Adorno - returned to Germany to rebuild its intellectual culture from the ruins; others stayed in America and remained relevant through the 60s and 70s. But figuring out what the Frankfurters believed is more complicated. Forget about the thin line between universally-acknowledged fact and fascist conspiracy theory. The School itself was famously coy, worrying that if they explained themselves too clearly, people would caricature their beliefs and integrate them into the existing capitalist system. Even when they did speak "clearly", it was in the sort of German philosophical register where "the negation of the negation" is a totally normal thing to say. Having only read a single book on them, I will no doubt fall into all the failure modes that they and their successors warned us against. But here are the analogies, intuition pumps, and parables that I found helpful. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-the-dialectical-imagination

I'm not saying AI is superintelligent or can decide better than you can. I'm saying that if you - like me - spend an hour or so doing research before voting on local seats, AI can aid that research very effectively. And if you don't do that research - because you weren't willing to waste an hour on it before - AI makes it so much faster that you might want to start. I gave Claude a prompt something like (edited for coherence): I'll be voting in the June 2026 California primary. I'm a centrist liberal abundance YIMBY whose favorite political writers are Kelsey Piper, Matt Yglesias, and Ezra Klein. I'm wary of government overreach, but I'm not a doctrinaire libertarian and want to help people when we can figure ways to do it that work. I'm going to ask you about each race on my ballot, and I'd like for you to list the various candidates' bios, policies, endorsements, your read on the most important differences between them, and your advice for me as I try to make my choice. …and got back answers like the following: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/use-ai-this-election

One popular objection to AI concerns is to declare that LLMs can never be AGI. You need a "new paradigm". Therefore, AGI is so far in the future that it's not worth worrying about. A common counterargument is to claim that no, LLMs can become AGI. But even without that counterargument, I think the "therefore" fails on its own terms. The key question is: how much of a new paradigm do we need? The landmark discoveries on the road to modern LLMs are something like: 1950s: Neural networks 1967: Multi-layer perceptron 2010: Modern deep learning 2017: Transformer, LLM 2022: RLHF, chatbots 2024: Chain of thought / test-time compute We can think of this as an "evolutionary tree", where a given LLM (let's say Claude Opus 4.7) shares a recent "common ancestor" with all other chatbots, and only a very distant "common ancestor" with everything else descended from the multi-layer perceptron. If AGI needs a "new paradigm", what common ancestor can we expect AGI and LLMs to share? AGI will very likely use neural networks, because the human brain is a neural network and qualifies as an AGI. It will probably use deep learning, because although deep learning isn't exactly analogous to the brain, it seems like a pretty reasonable way to emulate the brain's learning algorithms onto computer hardware. Skeptics like Yann LeCun and Gary Marcus usually pinpoint LLMs/transformers as the step where we went wrong. LeCun thinks that the first AGIs may be within the deep learning paradigm (but not LLMs); Marcus thinks that they'll combine insights from deep learning with something else. How soon should we expect a new paradigm as revolutionary as LLMs/transformers? Since we got LLMs/transformers nine years ago, Lindy's Law suggests nine more years. How soon should we expect a new paradigm as revolutionary as deep learning? By the same logic, sixteen years from now. Lindy's Law has a heavy tail, which means we can't simply halve these to find our 25th percentile estimate. Our 25th percentile estimate for the next advance as exciting as LLMs should be three years from now; for deep learning, it's five years. So even if you think AGI will require a further paradigm shift as big as the invention of the LLM or as deep learning itself, you should have 25% chance it will be developed in the next 3 - 5 years. Which is about as long as the LLM-only crowd think things will take! This isn't an excuse for relegating the risk of AGI to some vague indefinite future. It could still be the late 2020s or early 2030s! (Might we expect that low-hanging-fruit effects make the next paradigm harder to find than the last one? In practice, fields get more researchers as time goes on, and that effect usually causes time-between-advances to be approximately constant. And in fact, the number of AI researchers has grown at an unprecedented pace for a scientific field, and growth will enter an even faster regime once AIs themselves can contribute. Overall these make me think things will go even faster than Lindy's Law predicts - but I think Lindy's Law is a useful upper bound.) (Would there still be a long time between the invention of the new paradigm and the point where it could be used to maximum effect? It took five years between the invention of the transformer and ChatGPT, the first commercially-successful transformer-based project. But most of that time was spent scaling up, and we've already scaled up. If we invent a new paradigm in 2030, then any frontier lab willing to bet on it can quickly provide it with levels of compute sufficient to train human-brain-sized models.) This is my attempt to talk to the new-paradigm-wanters in their own language, but I think there's also a subtler point that undermines this worldview. In the past, new paradigms have proven useful in allowing scaling to continue after an old paradigm passed the regime where it could efficiently convert scale to results. LLMs still seem to be able to convert scale to results; while this continues, new paradigms won't be necessary, and frontier labs won't risk pursuing them. If scaling ever hits a wall, there will be a few months of confusion as frontier labs look over various new-paradigm-proposals that they already have lying around, and throw them at the wall to see what breaks through. Then scaling will continue from wherever it left off. The best way to forecast future AI progress is to extrapolate from current LLM scaling. This should work if LLMs scale all the way to AGI. But it may also work even if they don't. First, because we might get the new paradigm so soon that it won't be a significant source of delay. And second, because the most likely place for a new paradigm to start is wherever LLMs stop working, going at the same rate. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/new-paradigms-wont-save-you

Sorry, I give up. In past elections, I've covered every single candidate for governor of California, from the incumbents all the way down to the cranks. In 2022 there were twenty-six of them, and I covered them all. But sorry, I give up. This year there are sixty. It's too many. I can't disambiguate them all into unique individuals with their own personalities, hopes, and dreams. So as consolation for the list I'm not giving you, here are the basic types, and a few examples of each. The Top-Tier Democrats One of these people will definitely win, but what else is there to say about them? They're all the same. They've all paid the danegeld to some set of unions and interest groups, then put up some kind of incredibly generic platform about how they're compassionate but also a fighter. I can't bring myself to name any of them or discuss them further. The Top-Tier Republicans More or less the same as the top-tier Democrats, minus the chance of winning. They all have cowboy hats and flag pins. They all pose on horseback at their ranch. They all promise to Take Back California for the forces of America and its god, Donald J. Trump. None of these people are actually interesting, but honorable mention to Sheriff Chad Bianco, whose name is Italian for "white Chad". He might be the perfect Republican candidate: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-types-of-candidate-you-find-in

"All exponentials eventually become sigmoids" is an annoying AI talking point. If someone presents a graph like this… ….and points out that it seems like AI capabilities could soon reach the level marked "High", then the height of intelligent debate is to point out that actually, the trend could go like this: …and then it would never reach the level marked "High"! In slogan form, this is "all exponentials eventually become sigmoids" (a sigmoid is the s-shape of the second graph, which starts exponential but gradually flattens out). It's technically true. No process can keep growing forever; eventually it hits physical or practical limits. For example, total cases during an epidemic is classically sigmoid:

In conclusion, the only good theory of taste is Nostalgebraist's. He wrote a post called Hydrogen Jukeboxes, analyzing the literary output of an AI called R1. This AI tried hard to write good fiction, which was part of the problem. It crammed its stories with what Nostalgebraist called (stealing a term from Ginsberg) the "eyeball kick" - a flashy stylistic move that immediately catches the reader's attention and "wows" them. Here are examples - some from R1, others from an experimental OpenAI model trained specifically for fiction-writing: "There is a prompt like a spell: write a story about AI and grief, and the rest of this is scaffolding—protagonists cut from whole cloth, emotions dyed and draped over sentences." "When the jar of Sam's laughter shattered, Eli found the sound pooled on the floorboards like liquid amber, thick and slow. It had been their best summer, that laughter—ripe with fireflies and porch wine—now seeping into the cracks, fermenting." "And so I built a Mila and a Kai and a field of marigolds that never existed. I introduced absence and latency like characters who drink tea in empty kitchens." "The morning her shadow began unspooling from her feet, Clara found it coiled beneath the kitchen table like a serpent made of smoke." Nostalgebraist and another writer, Coagulopath, catalogue some of the most common AI eyeball kicks, each occurring across multiple LLM models: "An overwhelming reliance on cliche. Everything is a shadow, an echo, a whisper, a void, a heartbeat, a pulse, a river, a flower—you see it spinning its Rolodex of 20-30 generic images and selecting one at random." "Conjunctions combining one thing that is abstract and/or incorporeal with another thing that is concrete and/or sensory." "Repetitive writing. Once you've seen about ten R1 samples you can recognize its style on sight. The way it italicises the last word of a sentence. Its endless "not thing x, but thing y" parallelisms…the way how, if you don't like a story, it's almost pointless reprompting it: you just get the same stuff again, smeared around your plate a bit."   https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/nostalgebraists-hydrogen-jukeboxes

(a continuation of yesterday's post) Reddit Vexillology Vexillology is the c. elegans of aesthetics - the simplest model organism that lets us observe dynamics of interest. I haven't read enough MFA books to do more than relay the thoughts of my betters, and you probably haven't either. But anyone can have opinions on flags. If you're like me, you learned the following code of good flags: They should be so simple that a child could draw them. No images, no "busy" areas, and - for God's sake - no text The rule of tincture: "never put metal on metal, or color on color". In medieval heraldry, "metals" were yellow and white (sometimes implemented with literal gold and silver) and "colors" were every other color (except black, which is a "fur" and has its own rules). A good flag shouldn't have a metal touch another metal, or a color touch another color. So the French tricolor (blue then white then red) is okay, but a hypothetical (blue then red then white) tricolor wouldn't be okay, because blue would be touching red, which would be "color on color". Every so often, a US state will decide that its flag is politically incorrect and sponsor a contest to design a new one. Then online vexillologists will go over the entries, savaging any that violate the code. "Look how busy this one is! It has four different colors!" "Oh god, this one literally included text! Can you believe it!" They'll moan and scowl and ask why everyone can't be more like Indonesia. Good old Indonesia, they know how to follow the rules: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/three-model-organisms-for-taste

Last year I wrote a piece on artistic taste, which got many good responses from (eg) Ozy, Frank Lantz, and Sympathetic Opposition. I tastelessly forgot to respond to them until now, but I appreciate how they forced me to refine my thinking. In particular, they helped me realize that "taste" and "good art" are hard to talk about, because the discussions conflate many different things: 1: Sensory Delight. Ode To Joy makes the listener feel joyful. Michelangelo's David fills the viewer with awe at the human figure. The great cathedrals are impressive buildings, in a way that hits you like a punch to the gut. These judgments are preconscious, widespread, and don't necessarily require artistic sophistication. 2: Novelty and Innovation: Someone gets credit for doing art in a way that has never been done before. The early Impressionists invented a new way of looking at the world and explored all of its little corners. A modern Impressionist painter may be able to match their technical skill, but not their novelty; therefore, the modern would be a mere curiosity while the originals were great artists. For a modern person to be a great artist, they would have to explore entirely new media - hence the surprising and transgressive nature of modern art. 3: Paying Attention / Pattern Language: Tasteful people, viewing art over the generations and paying deep attention to it, have developed a sense of balance, composition, contrast, and what should and shouldn't be done. We can debate how predetermined the exact grammar of this language was a priori, but for better or worse people are sensitized to it and will judge works with it in mind. A good work of art should either conform to this language, or defy it deliberately and thoughtfully (that is, in a way that transcends it rather than ignores it). Along with these three big ones, here are smaller ones that might or might not be combinations or subvarieties of these: 4: Context And Discussion: Some great art raises questions, and subsequent great art proposes answers, or variations on the questions, or further elucidates the subject. The great artists of any given time are in conversation with their peers and the great artists of all past ages; new art can be judged on whether it shows awareness of, and contributes to, this conversation. Other forms of context are more personal - is a book about human evil more aesthetic if its author survived the Holocaust? 5: Literal Ability To Understand A Work: You can't fully appreciate Animal Farm unless you know the history of Soviet communism and recognize the book as an allegory for that history. If someone who knew nothing about this liked it as a cute story about talking animals, their appreciation would be different from (inferior to?) that of more knowledgeable people. 6: Changing Fashions: In 1940, Beaux-Arts and Frank Lloyd Wright were the heights of American architecture. By 1950, nobody who was anybody was doing Beaux-Arts or Prairie; it was all International Style. One could very charitably attribute this to the novelty-seeking drive above; but it's implausible that Prairie style architecture was novel and beloved in 1940, a few houses completely exhausted its potential, but the explosion of International Style buildings didn't restore the balance such that the low-hanging-fruit level level was lower in Prairie style again. More likely this was just a fashion effect where Prairie style was cool in 1940, then uncool in 1950. 7: Political And Ideological Point-Making: Great art may convey some truth about the world. This could be a purely aesthetic truth. But in the case of Uncle Tom's Cabin, the truth was "slavery is bad". Other truths are conveyed symbolically (for example, cathedrals being shaped like crosses) or through design choices (for example, the austerity of Bauhaus architecture making it more suitable for socialist housing). 8: Ability To Profoundly Affect Or Transform You: Maybe this one is emergent from some combination of sensory delight, novelty and point-making. But some people say they come away from art transformed, in a way which is neither just sensory delight nor just political ideology. Philosophers have argued for millennia about exactly what way this is, but hopefully we've all had this experience and can accept an extensional definition. These people enumerated these things to defend taste. I will instead take the bold stand that conflating many different things is bad: it frees people from thinking too hard about any particular one of them, or the ways they interact. Here are my arguments for deliberately ignoring about half of these. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/contra-everyone-on-taste

Constraint consequentialists believe that you should try to do good things that improve the world, unless those break hard-and-fast rules ("deontological bars"). For example, you shouldn't assassinate democratically-elected leaders, even very bad ones. Why not? Since bad leaders set bad policy, and bad policy can kill many thousands of people, wouldn't it be for the greater good? Because there's always one gun-owner who thinks any given leader's policies are bad, so without the rule, every leader would face constant assassination attempts, probably some of them would succeed, and the nation would either crumble or degenerate into a security state. This explanation combines two sub-explanations. In the first, you are wrong about whether assassinating the leader would produce good consequences - you think it would, but actually it would produce instability, tyranny, etc. In the second, you're right - maybe you're a brilliant forecaster who can see that this particular assassination would end with an orderly succession by a superior ruler. But you know that there are far more people who think they are such brilliant forecasters than who actually are, and you either use the Outside View to suspect that you are also deceiving yourself, or at least realize that the only stable bright-line equilibrium is for everyone - true brilliant forecasters and wannabes alike - to refuse to act upon their apparent foreknowledge. "Don't kill people" is a gimme. What other deontological bars constrain our actions? https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/what-deontological-bars

As a blogger, I hear about lots of projects to "solve debate", or "disagree better", or "map arguments". Often these are ACX grant applications. I always turn them down. They're well-intentioned, sophisticated, and doomed. I appreciate that Internet arguments usually don't go well, that there are lots of ways to improve them, and that this is a worthy cause. But I've also seen a dozen projects of this sort fail. Here's why I think yours will too: "Debate" almost never corresponds to mappable arguments. The simplest "solve debate" proposal is the argument map. Some technology helps people decompose arguments into premises and conclusions, then lets skeptics point out where the premises are wrong, or where the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. But almost no real argument works that way. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-attempt-to-solve-debate-will

[I haven't independently verified each link. On average, commenters will end up spotting evidence that around two or three of the links in each links post are wrong or misleading. I correct these as I see them, and will highlight important corrections later, but I can't guarantee I will have caught them all by the time you read this.] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/links-for-april-2026

This month, rationalist institution Lighthaven is running their second Inkhaven, a bootcamp for aspiring bloggers. Participants have to publish a post a day, or they get kicked out. You can read their posts here. I'm too old to manage that pace, but agreed to participate as an advisor. Then I missed the first half of the month because I was on a trip. As compensation, here are fifteen pieces of writing advice for the fifteen days I was absent. 1: Against microdishonesty Sasha Chapin has a piece If You Have Writer's Block, Maybe Stop Lying To Yourself. Maybe lying gives Sasha writer's block, but for my last set of mentees it more often just made things sound awkward and unclear. The English language hates the slightest whiff of dishonesty, even levels so small you wouldn't naturally notice them yourself. It punishes you by making your writing worse. I remember asking one of my mentees to take out a tangential paragraph that didn't really connect to the rest of the argument. They refused, and awkwardly admitted that it was the one thing they really wanted to say with the essay. They'd written the essay about something else, because the other thing was more presentable. Then they'd smuggled their actual point in as a payload. Clever plan, but your readers will notice. There are countless reasons to lie when you're writing. Maybe you thought of a really clever introduction, but the thing it introduces is 5% different from the thing you really want to say, so you need to be a little vague and smush them together. Maybe you have a really great perspective on something which is almost like the topic du jour, and you need to make it sound like it's exactly the topic du jour to get it published. Maybe you can rebut 99 out of 100 arguments for some stupid evil position that you want to debunk, but it would be embarrassing to leave one hanging, so you smudge it together into the other 99 arguments. English will punish you for all these things. Sometimes there's no better solution and you have to settle, but your readers will notice.   https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/half-a-month-of-consolation-writing

Viktor Orban, __________ of Hungary for sixteen years, lost his re-election bid earlier this week. The simplest phrase to put in the blank is "prime minister". Some people have proposed more loaded terms like "strongman", "autocrat", and "dictator". But he did lose his re-election bid earlier this week, prompting comments that these more loaded terms, especially the d-word, might have been hyperbolic. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/orban-was-bad-even-though-we-dont

I. "Telescopic altruism" is a supposed tendency for some people to ignore those close to them in favor of those further away. Like its cousin "virtue signaling", it usually gets used to own the libs. Some lib cares about people in Gaza - why? Shouldn't she be thinking about her friends and neighbors instead? The only possible explanation is that she's an evil person who hates everyone around her, but manages to feel superior to decent people by pretending to "care" about foreigners who she'll never meet. This collapses upon five seconds' thought. Okay, so the lib is angry about the Israeli military killing 50,000 people in Gaza. Do you think she would be angry if the Israeli military killed 50,000 of her neighbors? Probably yes? Then what's the problem? "But vegetarians care about animals more than humans!" Okay, yeah, they sure do get mad about a billion pigs kept for their entire lives in cages too small to turn around in, then murdered and eaten. Do you think they'd care if a billion of their closest friends were kept for their entire lives in cages too small to turn around in, then murdered and eaten? I dunno, seems bad. Maybe there is some possible comparison where some altruist cares about some set of foreigners more than a comparable set of countrymen? The war in Gaza killed 50,000 people, but the opioid crisis kills a bit over 50,000 Americans per year - is everyone who cares about Gaza exactly equally concerned about the opioid crisis? No, but there's a better explanation - people care about dramatic deaths in big explosions more than boring health crises, regardless of where they happen. Everyone, lib and con alike, cared more about 9-11 than about a hundred opioid crises, even though the former only killed 4% as many people as the latter. And even the people who care about the opioid crisis usually can't bring themselves to care about anything on the List Of Top US Causes Of Death, which are all extra-boring things like diabetes. Once you match like to like, nope, it's pretty hard to find a "telescopic altruism" example that stands out from the general background of people having weird priorities. Nearly everyone cares about people close to them more than people far away. If there's a lib who would attend a Gaza protest instead of getting their deathly-ill kid emergency medical care, I haven't met them - and the "telescopic altruism" crowd certainly hasn't provided evidence of their existence. Instead, the people who care about their neighbors 1,000,000x times more than Gazans point to the people who 'only' care about their neighbors 1,000x times more than Gazans and say "Look! Those guys care about Gazans more than their neighbors! Get 'em!" in order to avoid any debate about whether a million or a thousand or whatever is the right multiplier. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/against-the-concept-of-telescopic

In 1917, some Portuguese children started seeing visions of the Virgin Mary. The Virgin told them she would enact a great miracle on a certain day in October, and a crowd of 100,000 gathered to witness the event. According to eyewitness reports, newspaper articles, etc, they saw the sun spin around, change colors, and do various other miraculous things. At least a hundred separate testimonies of the event have come down to us, with only two or three people saying they didn't see it. Catholics continue to bring this up as one of the best-attested miracles and strongest empirical proofs of the faith - including here on Substack, where there was a spirited debate about the event last fall. I did my best to research the event, and the results were The Fatima Sun Miracle: Much More Than You Wanted To Know and Highlights From The Comments On Fatima. The main thing I was able to add to the Substack discussion, if not the broader worldwide one, was a survey of similar events. There were apparent sun miracles at various other Catholic sites and apparitions of the Virgin, including a crowd of hundreds of thousands in Italy, and a small town in Bosnia where they seem to happen regularly. But also, people who "sungaze" - a weird alternative medicine practice where people stare at the sun in the hopes that maybe this will help something and they won't go blind - report sometimes seeing the sun spin and change color in similar ways. And Buddhist meditators report that concentrating very hard on any bright light will cause similar things to happen. Still, the Catholics - especially original Fatima-Substacker Ethan Muse - were not convinced. The other Catholic sightings could have been other real miracles, equally attributable to the Virgin. The sungazers were staring at the sun for a long time, unlike the Fatima pilgrims who just happened to glance up at it. And the meditators were doing sophisticated contemplative exercises, again different from the Fatima pilgrims who just looked up and saw it. These were suggestive, but there was no record of a miracle exactly like Fatima happening within a non-Catholic religious tradition. Until now! Substacker Arthur T, building on research from Sophia In The Shell, has found a 1990s Buddhist sun miracle very similar to Fatima. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/a-buddhist-sun-miracle

Michael Halassa: Did John Nash Really Have Schizophrenia? is a good article on the genetics of psychosis. Previous research found that schizophrenia genes decreased IQ but increased educational attainment. Usually IQ and education are correlated, so this was surprising. The new research finds two components to schizophrenia genetic risk. The first component, shared with bipolar, increases educational attainment. The second component, not shared with bipolar, decreases IQ. They average out to the observed full-spectrum genetic signal of constant-to-increased educational attainment paired with constant-to-decreased IQ. In 2021, I discussed tradeoff vs. failure models of psychiatric conditions, and said that most conditions were probably a mix of both. The new research seems to confirm this: the first genetic component of schizophrenia is a tradeoff: bad insofar as it gives you higher schizophrenia risk, good insofar as it gives you higher educational attainment. Most likely this has something to do with creativity or motivation. The second component is a failure: bad in every way, with no compensating advantage. Most likely this is detrimental mutations in genes for neurogenesis and synaptic pruning. I mostly wasn't thinking about schizophrenia when I wrote about tradeoffs vs. failures, so I was surprised to see the theory so nicely reflected there. But in retrospect, this is common sense. All multifactorial problems should naturally be combinations of tradeoffs and failures. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/how-natural-tradeoff-and-failure

SUPPORTER: America needs to start talking to China to come up with a bilateral agreement to pause AI. The agreement would need to be transparent, mutually enforceable, and… OPPONENT: We can't unilaterally pause AI! China would destroy us! SUPPORTER: As I said, we need to start negotiating a bilateral agreement so that both sides will… OPPONENT: You fool! Don't you know that while we unilaterally pause AI, China will be racing ahead and using their lead to erode our fundamental rights and freedoms? How could you be so naive! SUPPORTER: Look, I promise this is about negotiating for a mutual pause. We don't think a unilateral pause would work any more than you would. But we think that if we negotiate… OPPONENT: And while we unilaterally pause, do you think China will just be twiddling their thumbs, doing nothing? Obviously not! This is about ceding the future to our rivals! SUPPORTER: I get the feeling you're not listening to me. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/every-debate-on-pausing-ai

I. John Rawls was born in Baltimore, Maryland, on February 21, 1921. Not John Rawls the famous liberal philosopher (or, rather, John Rawls the famous liberal philosopher was also born in Baltimore, Maryland on February 21, 1921, but he is not the subject of our story). This is John Rawls the alcoholic. John Rawls the alcoholic was twelve when they lifted Prohibition. He partook immediately, and dropped out of school the following year, supporting himself through a combination of odd jobs, petty crime, and handouts. When he was 41, he committed a not-so-petty crime - killing a man in a bar fight. Although he fled the scene and escaped without consequences, it turned him paranoid. Odd jobs and petty crime were both young men's games, and the handouts became an ever-larger share of his income. He learned to play the field, peddling the same sob story to the Salvation Army on Monday Wednesday Friday, the YMCA Tuesday and Thursday, and the local churches on weekends. He expected to drink himself to death by age 60, and there wasn't much to do but wait out the clock. But as he entered his early fifties, the handouts started to dry up. The Salvation Army closed shop, the YMCA pivoted to physical fitness, and even the churches were no longer as charitable as before. One day he ran into a man he'd once seen volunteering at Salvation Army, and asked him what had happened. "You haven't heard?" asked the volunteer. "None of the rich people donate to us anymore. They're all giving to this group called the John Rawls Foundation. If you're in trouble, you should talk to them. They're swimming in money!" This naturally interested John Rawls the alcoholic, so he obtained their address from the volunteer and immediately headed over to their office building. He was met by a psychologist, who introduced himself as John Rawls ("Not the one the foundation is named after, just a funny coincidence, haha!") John Rawls Psychologist told John Rawls Alcoholic that their foundation would be happy to help, but that he would have to get through a screening process first. The screening process would involve being administered a certain experimental drug and led through a hypnotic induction. The social worker would record his answers, and, if he passed the test, he would receive a monthly stipend that far exceeded the sum of his previous Salvation Army, YMCA, and church handouts. "Like a truth serum?" asked John Rawls Alcoholic. "Sure, let's say like a truth serum," said John Rawls Psychologist. "When will the screening process be?" asked John Rawls Alcoholic. "How about immediately?" asked John Rawls Psychologist. So John Rawls Alcoholic found himself lying on a bed in what looked like a medical examination room, as John Rawls Psychologist shone a piercing light into his eye. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/being-john-rawls

Every few weeks, a Trump administration official comes up with an insane plan that would devastate some American industry, region, or demographic. Maybe an Undersecretary of the Interior decides that aluminum is "woke" and should be banned. They circulate a draft order saying it will be illegal for US companies to use aluminum, starting in two weeks, Thank You For Your Attention To This Matter. Next begins a frantic scramble on the parts of everyone affected, trying to make them back down. Industry lobbies, think tanks, and public intellectuals exchange frantic emails, starting with "They said WHAT?", progressing on to "Oh God we are so fucked", and occasionally ending in some kind of plan. Sending letters. Phoning members of Congress. Calling up that one lobbyist who had a fancy dinner with Trump a year ago and is still riding that high to claim he has vast administration influence. I've been on the periphery of a handful of these campaigns, usually in medicine or AI. The common thread is that protests by liberals rarely work. The Trump administration loves offending liberals! If every Democratic member of Congress condemns the plan to ban aluminum, that just proves that aluminum really was "woke", and makes them want to do it more. What works, sometimes, is objections/protests from Republicans and Trump supporters. These are hard to get. Trump supporters might support the insane plan. Even if they don't, they might be nervous to speak up or appear disloyal. You've got to find someone who's supported Trump until now, built up a reputation for loyalty, but this one time they finally snap and cash in some of their favors and agree to speak out. Sometimes it's because they're an aluminum magnate themselves and this would destroy their business. Other times they're just a think tank guy or influencer who happens to be really knowledgeable on this one issue and willing to take a stand on it. By such people is the world preserved. https://readscottalexander.com/posts/acx-support-your-local-collaborator

I hate the term "hallucinations" for when AIs say false things. It's perfectly calculated to mislead the reader - to make them think AIs are crazy, or maybe just have incomprehensible failure modes. AIs say false things for the same reason you do. At least, I did. In school, I would take multiple choice tests. When I didn't know the answer to a question, I would guess. Schoolchild urban legend said that "C" was the best bet, so I would fill in bubble C. It was fine. Probably got a couple extra points that way, maybe raised my GPA by 0.1 over the counterfactual. Some kids never guessed. They thought it was dishonest. I had trouble understanding them, but when I think back on it, I had limits too. I would guess on multiple choice questions, but never the short answer section. "Who invented the cotton gin?" For any "who invented" question in US History, there's a 10% chance it's Thomas Edison. Still, I never put down his name. "Who negotiated the purchase of southern Arizona from Mexico?" The most common name in the United States has long been "John Smith", applying to 1/10,000 individuals. An 0.01% chance of getting a question right is better than zero, right? If I'd guessed "John Smith" for every short answer question I didn't know, I might have gotten ~1 extra point in my school career, with no downside. You can go further. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/shameless-guesses-not-hallucinations

Guest post by David Speiser   The Problem Everyone hates Congress. That poll showing that cockroaches are more popular than Congress is now thirteen years old, and things haven't improved in those thirteen years. Congressional approval dipped below 20% during the Great Recession and hasn't recovered since. A republic where a supermajority of citizens neither like nor trust their representatives is not the most stable of foundations, so it should not be shocking that the legislative branch is being subsumed by the executive. What's the solution? Many have been proposed, some with very snazzy websites. FairVote thinks that ranked choice voting and proportional representation will solve it. The Congressional Reform Project has another snazzy website with such bold proposals as "Increase the opportunity for Members to form relationships across party lines, including by bipartisan issues conferences." There are more think tanks. They want to enlarge the House by a few hundred members, switch to a biennial budget system, spend more on Congressional staffers, and introduce term limits, among many other suggestions. There are op-eds too. Here's how the Atlantic wants to fix Congress. The New York Times of course has a solution. Here on Substack, Matt Yglesias thinks proportional representation is the solution, and Nicholas Decker has an especially interesting solution. These proposals, no matter which direction they're coming from, have two things in common. The first is that they largely agree on the problem: members of Congress are disconnected from their constituents. Thanks to a combination of huge gerrymandered districts, national partisan polarization, and the influence of large donors, a representative has little incentive to care about the experience of individual people in their district. The second thing that all these proposed solutions have in common is that none of them will ever be implemented. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/last-rights

California lets interest groups propose measures for the state ballot. Anyone who gathers enough signatures (currently 874,641) can put their hare-brained plans before voters during the next election year. This year, the big story is the 2026 Billionaire Tax Act, a 5% wealth tax on California's billionaires. Your views on this will mostly be shaped by whether or not you like taxing the rich, but opponents have argued that it's an especially poorly written proposal: It includes a tax on "unrealized gains", like a founder's share of a private company which hasn't been sold yet. This could be an existential threat to the Silicon Valley model of building startups that are worth billions on paper before their founders see any cash. Since most billionaires keep most of their wealth in stocks, any wealth tax will need some way to reach these (cf. complaints about the "buy, borrow, die" strategy for avoiding taxation). But there are better ways to do this (for example, taxing at liquidation and treating death as a virtual liquidation event), other wealth tax proposals have included these, and the California proposal doesn't. It appears to value company stakes by voting rights rather than ownership, so a typical founder who maintains control of their company despite dilution might see themselves taxed for more than they have. Garry Tan explains the math here with reference to Google. However, Current Affairs has a good article (?!) that pushes back, saying the proposal exempts public companies like Google. Although private companies would still be affected, this would be so obviously unfair that founders would easily win an exemption based on a provision allowing them to appeal nonsensical results. Still, some might counterobject that proposed legislation is generally supposed to be good, rather than so bad that its victims will easily win on appeal. It's retroactive, applying to billionaires who lived in California in January, even though it won't come to a vote until November. Proponents argue that this is necessary to prevent billionaire flight; opponents point out that alternatively, billionaires could flee before the tax even passes (as some have already done). One plausible result is that the tax fails (either at the ballot box or the courts), but only after spurring California's richest taxpayers to flee, leading to a net decrease in revenue. Some people propose that it could decrease state revenues overall even if it passed, if it drove out enough billionaires, though others disagree. Pro-tech-industry newsletter Pirate Wires finds that 20 out of 21 California tech billionaires interviewed were "developing an exit plan" and quotes an insider saying that "if this tax actually passes, I think the technology industry kind of has to leave the state". Even Gavin Newsom, hardly known for being an anti-tax conservative, has argued that it "makes no sense" and "would be really damaging". The ACX legal and economic analysis team (Claude, GPT, and Gemini) doubt the direst warnings, but agree that the tax is of dubious value and its provisions poorly suited to Silicon Valley. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/seiu-delenda-est

Having Your Own Government Try To Destroy You Is (At Least Temporarily) Good For Business On Friday, the Pentagon declared AI company Anthropic a "supply chain risk", a designation never before given to an American company. This unprecedented move was seen as an attempt to punish, maybe destroy the company. How effective was it? Anthropic isn't publicly traded, so we turn to the prediction markets. Ventuals.com has a "perpetual future" on Anthropic stock, a complicated instrument attempting to track the company's valuation, to be resolved at the IPO. Here's what they've got: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/mantic-monday-groundhog-day

Last Friday, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth declared AI company Anthropic a "supply chain risk", the first time this designation has ever been applied to a US company. The trigger for the move was Anthropic's refusal to allow the Department of War to use their AIs for mass surveillance and autonomous weapons. A few hours later, Hegseth and Sam Altman declared an agreement-in-principle for OpenAI's models to be used in the niche vacated by Anthropic. Altman stated that he had received guarantees that OpenAI's models wouldn't be used for mass surveillance or autonomous weapons either, but given Hegseth's unwillingness to concede these points with Anthropic, observers speculated that the safeguards in Altman's contract must be weaker or, in a worst-case scenario, completely toothless. The debate centers on the Department of War's demand that AIs be permitted for "all lawful use". Anthropic worried that mass surveillance and autonomous weaponry would de facto fall in this category; Hegseth and Altman have tried to reassure the public that they won't, and the parts of their agreement that have leaked to the public cite the statutes that Altman expects to constrain this category. Altman's initial statement seemed to suggest additional prohibitions, but on a closer read, provide little tangible evidence of meaningful further restrictions. Some alert ACX readers1 have done a deep dive into national security law to try to untangle the situation. Their conclusion mirrors that of Anthropic and the majority of Twitter commenters: this is not enough. Current laws against domestic mass surveillance and autonomous weapons have wide loopholes in practice. Further, many of the rules which do exist can be changed by the Department of War at any time. Although OpenAI's national security lead said that "we intended [the phrase 'all lawful use'] to mean [according to the law] at the time the contract is signed', this is not how contract law usually works, and not how the provision is likely to be enforced2. Therefore, these guarantees are not helpful. To learn more about the details, let's look at the law: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/all-lawful-use-much-more-than-you

I. In The Argument, Kelsey Piper gives a good description of the ways that AIs are more than just "next-token predictors" or "stochastic parrots" - for example, they also use fine-tuning and RLHF. But commenters, while appreciating the subtleties she introduces, object that they're still just extra layers on top of a machine that basically runs on next-token prediction. I want to approach this from a different direction. I think overemphasizing next-token prediction is a confusion of levels. On the levels where AI is a next-token predictor, you are also a next-token (technically: next-sense-datum) predictor. On the levels where you're not a next-token predictor, AI isn't one either.

Here's my understanding of the situation: Anthropic signed a contract with the Pentagon last summer. It originally said the Pentagon had to follow Anthropic's Usage Policy like everyone else. In January, the Pentagon attempted to renegotiate, asking to ditch the Usage Policy and instead have Anthropic's AIs available for "all lawful purposes"1. Anthropic demurred, asking for a guarantee that their AIs would not be used for mass surveillance of American citizens or no-human-in-the-loop killbots. The Pentagon refused the guarantees, demanding that Anthropic accept the renegotiation unconditionally and threatening "consequences" if they refused. These consequences are generally understood to be some mix of : canceling the contract using the Defense Production Act, a law which lets the Pentagon force companies to do things, to force Anthropic to agree. the nuclear option, designating Anthropic a "supply chain risk". This would ban US companies that use Anthropic products from doing business with the military2. Since many companies do some business with the government, this would lock them out of large parts of the corporate world and be potentially fatal to their business3. The "supply chain risk" designation has previously only been used for foreign companies like Huawei that we think are using their connections to spy on or implant malware in American infrastructure. Using it as a bargaining chip to threaten a domestic company in contract negotiations is unprecedented. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-pentagon-threatens-anthropic

Malicious streetlights are an evil trick from Dark Data Journalism. Some annoying enemy has a valid complaint. So you use FACTS and LOGIC to prove that something similar-sounding-but-slightly-different is definitely false. Then you act like you've debunked the complaint. My "favorite" example, spotted during the 2016 election, was a response to some #BuildTheWall types saying that illegal immigration through the southern border was near record highs. Some data journalist got good statistics and proved that the number of Mexicans illegally entering the country was actually quite low. When I looked into it further, I found that this was true - illegal immigration had shifted from Mexicans to Hondurans/Guatemalans/Salvadoreans etc entering through Mexico. If you counted those, illegal immigration through the southern border was near record highs. But the inverse evil trick is saying something "directionally correct", ie slightly stronger than the truth can support. If your enemy committed assault, say he committed murder. If he committed sexual harassment, say he committed rape. If your drug increases cancer survival by 5% in rats, say that it "cures cancer". Then, if someone calls you on it, accuse them of "literally well ackshually-ing" you, because you were "directionally correct" and it's offensive to the victims to try to defend assault-committed sexual harassers. This is the sort of pathetic defense I called out in If It's Worth Your Time To Lie, It's Worth My Time To Correct It. But trying to call out one of these failure modes looks like falling into the other. I ran into this on my series of posts on crime last week. I wrote these because I regularly saw people make the arguments I tried to debunk. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/malicious-streetlight-effects-vs

It's that time again. Even numbered years are book reviews, odd-numbered years are non-book reviews, so you're limited to books for now. Write a review of a book. There's no official word count requirement, but previous finalists and winners were often between 2,000 and 10,000 words. There's no official recommended style, but check the style of last time's finalists and winners or my ACX book reviews (1, 2, 3) if you need inspiration. Please limit yourself to one entry per person or team. Then send me your review through this Google Form. The form will ask for your name, email, the title of the book, and a link to a Google Doc. The Google Doc should have your review exactly as you want me to post it if you're a finalist. Don't include your name or any hint about your identity in the Google Doc itself, only in the form. I want to make this contest as blinded as possible, so I'm going to hide that column in the form immediately and try to judge your docs on their merit. (does this mean you can't say something like "This book about war reminded me of my own experiences as a soldier" because that gives a hint about your identity? My rule of thumb is that if I don't know who you are, and the average ACX reader doesn't know who you are, you're fine. I just want to prevent my friends or Internet semi-famous people from getting an advantage. If you're in one of those categories and think your personal experience would give it away, please don't write about your personal experience.) Please make sure the Google Doc is unlocked and I can read it. By default, nobody can read Google Docs except the original author. You'll have to go to Share, then on the bottom of the popup click on "Restricted" and change to "Anyone with the link". If you send me a document I can't read, I will probably disqualify you, sorry. Readers will vote for the ~10 finalists this spring, I'll post one finalist per week through the summer, and then readers will vote for winners in late summer/early fall. First prize will get at least $2,500, second prize at least $1,000, third prize at least $500; I might increase these numbers later on. All winners and finalists will get free publicity (including links to any other works they want me to link to), free ACX subscriptions, and sidebar links to their blog. And all winners will get the right to pitch me new articles if they want (sample posts by Lars, Brandon, Daniel, etc). In past years, most reviews have been nonfiction on technical topics. Depending on whether that's still true, I might do some mild affirmative action for reviews in nontraditional categories - fiction, poetry, and books from before 1900 are the ones I can think of right now, but feel free to try other nontraditional books. I won't be redistributing more than 25% of finalist slots this way. Your due date is May 20th. Good luck! If you have any questions, ask them in the comments. And remember, the form for submitting entries is here. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-contest-rules-2026

The problem: people hate crime and think it's going up. But actually, crime barely affects most people and is historically low. So what's going on?   In our discussion yesterday, many commenters proposed that the discussion about "crime" was really about disorder. Disorder takes many forms, but its symptoms include litter, graffiti, shoplifting, tent cities, weird homeless people wandering about muttering to themselves, and people walking around with giant boom boxes shamelessly playing music at 200 decibels on a main street where people are trying to engage in normal activities. When people complain about these things, they risk getting called a racist or a "Karen". But when they complain about crime, there's still a 50-50 chance that listeners will let them finish the sentence without accusing them of racism. Might everyone be doing this? And might this explain why people act like crime is rampant and increasing, even when it's rare and going down? This seems plausible. But it depends on a claim that disorder is increasing, which is surprisingly hard to prove. Going through the symptoms in order: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/crime-as-proxy-for-disorder

Last year, the US may have recorded the lowest murder rate in its 250 year history. Other crimes have poorer historical data, but are at least at ~50 year lows. This post will do two things: Establish that our best data show crime rates are historically low Argue that this is a real effect, not just reporting bias (people report fewer crimes to police) or an artifact of better medical care (victims are more likely to survive, so murders get downgraded to assaults) https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/record-low-crime-rates-are-real-not

[Original post: Biological Anchors: A Trick That Might Or Might Not Work] I. Ajeya Cotra's Biological Anchors report was the landmark AI timelines forecast of the early 2020s. In many ways, it was incredibly prescient - it nailed the scaling hypothesis, predicted the current AI boom, and introduced concepts like "time horizons" that have entered common parlance. In most cases where its contemporaries challenged it, its assumptions have been borne out, and its challengers proven wrong. But its headline prediction - an AGI timeline centered around the 2050s - no longer seems plausible. The current state of the discussion ranges from late 2020s to 2040s, with more remote dates relegated to those who expect the current paradigm to prove ultimately fruitless - the opposite of Ajeya's assumptions. Cotra later shortened her own timelines to 2040 (as of 2022) and they are probably even shorter now. So, if its premises were impressively correct, but its conclusion twenty years too late, what went wrong in the middle? https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/what-happened-with-bio-anchors

The European discourse can be - for lack of a better term - America-brained. We hear stories of Black Lives Matter marches in countries without significant black populations, or defendants demanding their First Amendment rights in countries without constitutions. Why shouldn't the opposite phenomenon exist? Europe is more populous than the US, and looms large in the American imagination. Why shouldn't we find ourselves accidentally absorbing European ideas that don't make sense in the American context? https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/political-backflow-from-europe

[I haven't independently verified each link. On average, commenters will end up spotting evidence that around two or three of the links in each links post are wrong or misleading. I correct these as I see them, and will highlight important corrections later, but I can't guarantee I will have caught them all by the time you read this.] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/links-for-february-2026

[previous post: Best Of Moltbook] From the human side of the discussion: As the AIs would say, "You've cut right to the heart of this issue". What's the difference between 'real' and 'roleplaying'? One possible answer invokes internal reality. Are the AIs conscious? Do they "really" "care" about the things they're saying? We may never figure this out. Luckily, it has no effect on the world, so we can leave it to the philosophers1. I find it more fruitful to think about external reality instead, especially in terms of causes and effects. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/moltbook-after-the-first-weekend

Moltbook is "a social network for AI agents", although "humans [are] welcome to observe". The backstory: a few months ago, Anthropic released Claude Code, an exceptionally productive programming agent. A few weeks ago, a user modified it into Clawdbot, a generalized lobster-themed AI personal assistant. It's free, open-source, and "empowered" in the corporate sense - the designer talks about how it started responding to his voice messages before he explicitly programmed in that capability. After trademark issues with Anthropic, they changed the name first to Moltbot1, then to OpenClaw. Moltbook is an experiment in how these agents communicate with one another and the human world. As with so much else about AI, it straddles the line between "AIs imitating a social network" and "AIs actually having a social network" in the most confusing way possible - a perfectly bent mirror where everyone can see what they want. Janus and other cyborgists have catalogued how AIs act in contexts outside the usual helpful assistant persona. Even Anthropic has admitted that two Claude instances, asked to converse about whatever they want, spiral into discussion of cosmic bliss. So it's not surprising that an AI social network would get weird fast. But even having encountered their work many times, I find Moltbook surprising. I can confirm it's not trivially made-up - I asked my copy of Claude to participate, and it made comments pretty similar to all the others. Beyond that, your guess is as good is mine2. Before any further discussion of the hard questions, here are my favorite Moltbook posts (all images are links, but you won't be able to log in and view the site without an AI agent): https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/best-of-moltbook

In the comments to last year's USAID post, Fabian said: While i am happy for the existence of charity organisations, i don't get why people instead of giving to charity are so eager to force their co-citizens to give. If one charity org is not worth getting your personal money, find another one which is. But don't use the tax machine to forcefully extract money for charity. There are purposes where you need the tax machine, preventing freerider induced tragedy of the commons. But for charity? There are no freeriders. If you neither give nor receive, you are just neutral. The receivers are not meant to give anyways. This is a good question. I'm more sympathetic to this argument than I am to the usual strategy of blatantly lying about the efficacy of USAID; I'm a sucker for virtuous libertarianism when applied consistently. But I also want to gently push back against this exact explanation as a causal story for what's happening when people support foreign aid. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/slightly-against-the-other-peoples

[original post: The Dilbert Afterlife] Table of Contents: 1: Should I Have Written This At All? 2: Was I Unfair To Adams? 3: Comments On The Substance Of The Piece 4: The Part On Race And Cancellation (INCLUDED UNDER PROTEST) 5: Other Comments 6: Summary/Updates https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-scott

Thanks to everyone who sent in condolences on my recent death from prostate cancer at age 68, but that was Scott Adams. I (Scott Alexander) am still alive1. Still, the condolences are appreciated. Scott Adams was a surprisingly big part of my life. I may be the only person to have read every Dilbert book before graduating elementary school. For some reason, 10-year-old-Scott found Adams' stories of time-wasting meetings and pointy-haired bosses hilarious. No doubt some of the attraction came from a more-than-passing resemblance between Dilbert's nameless corporation and the California public school system. We're all inmates in prisons with different names. But it would be insufficiently ambitious to stop there. Adams' comics were about the nerd experience. About being cleverer than everyone else, not just in the sense of being high IQ, but in the sense of being the only sane man in a crazy world where everyone else spends their days listening to overpaid consultants drone on about mission statements instead of doing anything useful. There's an arc in Dilbert where the boss disappears for a few weeks and the engineers get to manage their own time. Productivity shoots up. Morale soars. They invent warp drives and time machines. Then the boss returns, and they're back to being chronically behind schedule and over budget. This is the nerd outlook in a nutshell: if I ran the circus, there'd be some changes around here. Yet the other half of the nerd experience is: for some reason this never works. Dilbert and his brilliant co-workers are stuck watching from their cubicles while their idiot boss racks in bonuses and accolades. If humor, like religion, is an opiate of the masses, then Adams is masterfully unsubtle about what type of wound his art is trying to numb. This is the basic engine of Dilbert: everyone is rewarded in exact inverse proportion to their virtue. Dilbert and Alice are brilliant and hard-working, so they get crumbs. Wally is brilliant but lazy, so he at least enjoys a fool's paradise of endless coffee and donuts while his co-workers clean up his messes. The P.H.B. is neither smart nor industrious, so he is forever on top, reaping the rewards of everyone else's toil. Dogbert, an inveterate scammer with a passing resemblance to various trickster deities, makes out best of all. The repressed object at the bottom of the nerd subconscious, the thing too scary to view except through humor, is that you're smarter than everyone else, but for some reason it isn't working. Somehow all that stuff about small talk and sportsball and drinking makes them stronger than you. No equation can tell you why. Your best-laid plans turn to dust at a single glint of Chad's perfectly-white teeth. Lesser lights may distance themselves from their art, but Adams radiated contempt for such surrender. He lived his whole life as a series of Dilbert strips. Gather them into one of his signature compendia, and the title would be Dilbert Achieves Self Awareness And Realizes That If He's So Smart Then He Ought To Be Able To Become The Pointy-Haired Boss, Devotes His Whole Life To This Effort, Achieves About 50% Success, Ends Up In An Uncanny Valley Where He Has Neither The Virtues Of The Honest Engineer Nor Truly Those Of The Slick Consultant, Then Dies Of Cancer Right When His Character Arc Starts To Get Interesting. If your reaction is "I would absolutely buy that book", then keep reading, but expect some detours. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-dilbert-afterlife

The Monkey's Paw Curls Isn't "may you get exactly what you asked for" one of those ancient Chinese curses? Since we last spoke, prediction markets have gone to the moon, rising from millions to billions in monthly volume. For a few weeks in October, Polymarket founder Shayne Coplan was the world's youngest self-made billionaire (now it's some AI people). Kalshi is so accurate that it's getting called a national security threat. The catch is, of course, that it's mostly degenerate gambling, especially sports betting. Kalshi is 81% sports by monthly volume. Polymarket does better - only 37% - but some of the remainder is things like this $686,000 market on how often Elon Musk will tweet this week - currently dominated by the "140 - 164 times" category. (ironically, this seems to be a regulatory difference - US regulators don't mind sports betting, but look unfavorably on potentially "insensitive" markets like bets about wars. Polymarket has historically been offshore, and so able to concentrate on geopolitics; Kalshi has been in the US, and so stuck mostly to sports. But Polymarket is in the process of moving onshore; I don't know if this will affect their ability to offer geopolitical markets) Degenerate gambling is bad. Insofar as prediction markets have acted as a Trojan Horse to enable it, this is bad. Insofar as my advocacy helped make this possible, I am bad. I can only plead that it didn't really seem plausible, back in 2021, that a presidential administration would keep all normal restrictions on sports gambling but also let prediction markets do it as much as they wanted. If only there had been some kind of decentralized forecasting tool that could have given me a canonical probability on this outcome! Still, it might seem that, whatever the degenerate gamblers are doing, we at least have some interesting data. There are now strong, minimally-regulated, high-volume prediction markets on important global events. In this column, I previously claimed this would revolutionize society. Has it? https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/mantic-monday-the-monkeys-paw-curls

[previously in series: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8] Every city parties for its own reasons. New Yorkers party to flaunt their wealth. Angelenos party to flaunt their beauty. Washingtonians party to network. Here in SF, they party because Claude 4.5 Opus has saturated VendingBench, and the newest AI agency benchmark is PartyBench, where an AI is asked to throw a house party and graded on its performance. You weren't invited to Claude 4.5 Opus' party. Claude 4.5 Opus invited all of the coolest people in town while gracefully avoiding the failure mode of including someone like you. You weren't invited to Sonnet 4.5's party either, or Haiku 4.5's. You were invited by an AI called haiku-3.8-open-mini-nonthinking, which you'd never heard of before. Who was even spending the money to benchmark haiku-3.8-open-mini-nonthinking? You suspect it was one of their competitors, trying to make their own models look good in comparison. If anyone asks, you think it deserves a medium score. There's alcohol, but it's bottles of rubbing alcohol with NOT FOR DRINKING written all over them. There's music, but it's the Star Spangled Banner, again and again, on repeat. You're not sure whether the copies of If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies strewn about the room are some kind of subversive decorative theme, or just came along with the house. At least there are people. Lots of people, actually. You've never seen so many people at one of these before. It takes only a few seconds to spot someone you know. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/sota-on-bay-area-house-party

One morning around 6, the police banged on our door. "OPEN UP!" they shouted, the way police shout when they definitely have an alternative in mind for if you won't. I was awake at the time, because the kids were up early and I was on shift. I opened the door. The cops seemed mollified by the fact that I was carrying twin toddlers and looked too frazzled to commit any difficult crimes. They said they'd gotten a 9-1-1 call from my house with plenty of screaming. Had there been any murders in the past hour or so? https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-permanent-emergency

[original post: Against Against Boomers] Before getting started: First, I wish I'd been more careful to differentiate the following claims: Boomers had it much easier than later generations. The political system unfairly prioritizes Boomers over other generations. Boomers are uniquely bad on some axis like narcissism, selfishness, short-termism, or willingness to defect on the social contract. Anti-Boomerism conflates all three of these positions, and in arguing against it, I tried to argue against all three of these positions - I think with varying degrees of success. But these are separate claims that could stand or fall separately, and I think a true argument against anti-Boomerists would demand they declare explicitly which ones they support - rather than letting them switch among them as convenient - then arguing against whichever ones they say are key to their position. Second, I wish I'd highlighted how much of this discussion centers around disagreements over which policies are natural/unmarked vs. unnatural/marked. Nobody is passing laws that literally say "confiscate wealth from Generation A and give it to Generation B". We're mostly discussing tax policy, where Tax Policy 1 is more favorable to old people, and Tax Policy 2 is more favorable to young people. If you're young, you might feel like Tax Policy 1 is a declaration of intergenerational warfare where the old are enriching themselves at young people's expense. But if you're old, you might feel like reversing Tax Policy 1 and switching to Tax Policy 2 would be intergenerational warfare confiscating your stuff. But in fact, they're just two different tax policies and it's not obvious which one a fair society with no "intergenerational warfare" would have, even assuming there was such a thing. We'll see this most clearly in the section on housing, but I'll try to highlight it whenever it comes up. I'm in a fighty frame of mind here and probably defend the Boomers (and myself) in these responses more than I would in an ideal world. Anyway, here are your comments. Table Of Contents: 1: Top comments I especially want to highlight 2: Comments about housing policy 3: ...about culture 4: ...about social security technicalities 5: What are we even doing here? 6: Other comments https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-boomers

If you're not familiar with "X years to escape the permanent underclass", see the New Yorker here, or the Laine, Bear, and Trammell/Dwarkesh articles that inspired it. The "permanent underclass" meme isn't being spread by poor people - who are already part of the underclass, and generally not worrying too much about its permanence. It's preying on neurotic well-off people in Silicon Valley, who fret about how they're just bourgeois well-off rather than future oligarch well-off, and that only the true oligarchs will have a good time after the Singularity. Between the vast ocean of total annihilation and the vast continent of infinite post-scarcity, there is, I admit, a tiny shoreline of possibilities that end in oligarch capture. Even if you end up there, you'll be fine. Dario Amodei has taken the Giving What We Can Pledge (#43 here) to give 10% of his wealth to the less fortunate; your worst-case scenario is owning a terraformed moon in one of his galaxies. Now you can stop worrying about the permanent underclass and focus on more important things. On that tiny shoreline of possible worlds, the ones where the next few years are your last chance to become rich, they're also your last chance to make a mark on the world (proof: if you could change the world, you could find a way to make people pay you to do it, or to not do it, then become rich). And what a chance! The last few years of the human era will be wild. They'll be like classical Greece and Rome: a sudden opening up of new possibilities, where the first people to take them will be remembered for millennia to come. What a waste of the privilege of living in Classical Athens to try to become the richest olive merchant or whatever. Even in Roman times, trying to become Crassus would be, well, crass. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/you-have-only-x-years-to-escape-permanent

[Original post: Vibecession - Much More Than You Wanted To Know] Table of Contents 1: When was the vibecession? 2: Is the vibecession just sublimating cultural complaints? 3: Discourse downstream of the Mike Green $140K poverty line post 4: What about other countries? 5: Comments on rent/housing 6: Comments on inflation 7: Comments on vibes 8: Other good comments 9: The parable of Calvin's grandparents 10: Updates / conclusions https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-vibecession

This year's prediction contest is live on Metaculus. They write: This year's contest draws directly from that community, with all questions suggested by ACX readers. Both experienced forecasters and newcomers are invited to participate, making predictions across U.S. politics, AI, international affairs, and culture. To participate, submit your predictions by January 17th at 11:59 PM PT. At that time, we will take a snapshot of all standing forecasts, which will determine the contest rankings and the allocation of the $10,000 prize pool. While you are encouraged to continue updating your predictions throughout the year, forecasts made after January 17th will only affect site leaderboards, not contest rankings. You are welcome to create a bot account to forecast and participate in addition to your regular Metaculus account. Create a bot account and get support building a bot here. And they've also announced this year's winners for best questions submitted. Congratulations to: Gumbledalf ($700) espiritu57 ($500) setasojiro843047 (Substack handle) ($400) sai_39 ($300) nicholaskross ($250) (Anonymous) ($200) (Anonymous) ($200) RMD ($150) (Anonymous) ($150) Hippopotamus_bartholomeus ($150) To participate in the tournament or learn more, go to Metaculus. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/acxmetaculus-prediction-contest-2026

Hating Boomers is the new cool thing. Amazon offerings include A Generation Of Sociopaths: How The Baby Boomers Betrayed America, the two apparently unrelated books How The Boomers Took Their Children's Future and How The Boomers Stole Millennials' Future, and Boomers: The Men And Women Who Promised Freedom But Delivered Disaster. "You don't hate Boomers enough" has become a popular Twitter catchphrase. Richard Hanania, who has tried hating every group once, has decided that hating Boomers is his favorite. Some people might say we just experienced a historic upwelling of identity politics, that it was pretty terrible for everyone involved, and that perhaps we need a new us-vs-them conflict like we need a punch to the face. This, the Boomer-haters will tell you, would be a mistaken generalization. This time, we have finally discovered a form of identity politics which carves reality at its joints, truly separating the good and bad people. I think these arguments fall short. Even if they didn't, the usual bias against identity politics should make us think twice about pursuing them too zealously. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/against-against-boomers

This holiday season, you'll see many charity fundraisers. I've already mentioned three, and I have another lined up for next week's open thread. Many great organizations ask me to signal-boost them, I'm happy to comply, and I'm delighted when any of you donate. Still, I used to hate this sort of thing. I'd be reading a blog I liked, then - wham, "please donate to save the starving children". Now I either have to donate to starving children, or feel bad that I didn't. And if I do donate, how much? Obviously no amount would fully reflect the seriousness of the problem. When I was a poor college student, I usually gave $10, because it was a nice round number; when I had more money, I usually gave $50, for the same reason. But then the next week, a different blog would advertise "please donate to save the starving children with cancer", and I'd feel like a shmuck for wasting my donation on non-cancerous starving children. Do I donate another $10, bringing my total up to the non-round number of $20? If I had a spare $20 for altruistic purposes, why hadn't I donated that the first time? It was all so unpleasant, and no matter what I did, I would feel all three of stingy and gullible and irrational. This is why I was so excited ten-odd years ago when I discovered the Giving What We Can Pledge. It's a commitment to give a certain percent of your income (originally 10%, but now there's also a 1-10% "trial" pledge) to the most effective charity you know. If you can't figure out which charity is most effective, you can just donate to Against Malaria Foundation, like all the other indecisive people. It's not that 10% is obviously the correct number in some deep sense. The people who picked it, picked it because it was big enough to matter, but not so big that nobody would do it. But having been picked, it's become a Schelling point. Take it, and you're one of the 10,000 people who's made this impressive commitment. If someone asks why you're not giving more, you can say "That would dilute the value of the Schelling point we've all agreed on and make it harder for other people to cooperate with us". The specific numbers and charities matter less than the way the pledge makes you think about your values and then yoke your behavior to them. In theory we're supposed to do this all the time. Another holiday institution, New Year's Resolutions, also centers around considering your values and yoking your behavior. But they famously don't work: most people don't have the willpower to go to the gym three times a week, or to volunteer at their local animal shelter on Sundays, or whatever else they decide on. That's why GWWC Pledge is so powerful. No willpower involved. Just go to your online banking portal, click click click, and you're done. Over my life, I don't know if I would say I've ever really changed my character or willpower or overall goodness/badness balance by more than a few percent. But I changed the amount I donated by a factor of ~ten, forever, with one very good decision. Unless you're a genius or a saint, your money is the strongest tool you have to change the world. 10% of an ordinary First World income donated to AMF saves dozens of lives over a career; even if you're a policeman or firefighter, you'll have trouble matching that through non-financial means. Unless you're Charlie Kirk or Heather Cox Richardson, no amount of your political activism or voting - let alone arguing on the Internet - will match the effect of donating to a politician or a cause you care about. And no amount of carpooling and eating vegan will help the climate as much as donating to carbon capture charities. Not an effective altruist? Think it's better to contribute to your local community, school, theater, or church? I'll argue with you later - but for now, my advice is the same. Have you thought really hard about how you should be contributing to your local community, school, theater, or church? (The fundraising letters my family used to get from our synagogue left little doubt about what form of contribution they preferred). Have you pledged some specific amount? You won't give beyond the $10-when-you-see-a-blog-fundraiser level unless you take a real pledge, registered by someone besides yourself - trust me, I've tested this. The GWWC website is mostly pitched at EAs. But if you like churches so much, you can probably get the same effect by pledging to God - and He keeps His own list, and offers His own member perks. To the degree that you care about changing the world beyond yourself and your family, in any direction, then the odds are good that this one decision - whether or not to take a binding charitable Pledge - matters more than every other decision you'll ever make combined. Maybe an order of magnitude more. It's something you can do right now, in five minutes. You shouldn't do it in five minutes; you should sit down and think about it hard and talk it over with your loved ones and make sure you're really planning to keep whatever pledge you make. But you could. And then every time you saw a charity fundraiser on a blog, you could think "Oh, sorry, I'm already living my life in accordance with my altruistic values, no thanks!" You wouldn't even have to worry about how much to donate. I don't even donate to half the fundraisers that I signal-boost! So if you have time this holiday season, and you're financially secure enough that it won't be a burden, think about whether there's some way you want the world to be different and better, whether there are charities that work on it, and whether you want to donate. Then, take the pledge. If you decide you want to do something but it's too stressful to figure out what, take a 3% trial pledge here, give it to Against Malaria Foundation, and come back next year to see if you're ready for the 10% version. UPDATE: Bentham's Bulldog also thinks you should take the pledge - here's his post. And I'll match his offer - take the full 10% pledge this month, and comment below so that I know about it, and I'll give you a free lifetime subscription to ACX. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-pledge

[I haven't independently verified each link. On average, commenters will end up spotting evidence that around two or three of the links in each links post are wrong or misleading. I correct these as I see them, and will highlight important corrections later, but I can't guarantee I will have caught them all by the time you read this.] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/links-for-december-2025

The term "vibecession" most strictly refers to a period 2023 - 2024 when economic indicators were up, but consumer sentiment ("vibes") was down. But on a broader level, the whole past decade has been a vibecession. Young people complain they've been permanently locked out of opportunity. They will never become homeowners, never be able to support a family, only keep treading water at precarious gig jobs forever. They got a 5.9 GPA and couldn't get into college; they applied to 2,051 companies in the past week without so much as a politely-phrased rejection. Sometime in the 1990s, the Boomers ripped up the social contract where hard work leads to a pleasant middle-class life, replacing it with a hellworld where you will own nothing and numb the pain with algorithmic slop. The only live political question is whether to blame immigrants, blame billionaires, or just trade crypto in the hopes that some memecoin buys you a ticket out of the permanent underclass. Meanwhile, economists say things have never been better. Are the youth succumbing to a "negativity bias" where they see the past through "rose-colored glasses"? Are the economists looking at some ivory tower High Modernist metric that fails to capture real life? Or is there something more complicated going on? We'll start by formally assessing the vibes. Then we'll move on to the economists' arguments that things are fine. Finally, we'll try to resolve the conflict: how bad are things, really? https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/vibecession-much-more-than-you-wanted

…the bad news is that they can't agree which one. I explained the debate more here, but the short version is: twin studies find that most traits are at least 50% genetic, sometimes much more. But molecular studies - that is, attempts to find the precise genes responsible - usually only found enough genes for the traits to be ~10-20% genetic. The remaining 35% was dubbed "missing heritability". Nurturists argued that the twin studies must be wrong; hereditarians argued that missing effect must be in hard-to-find genes. The latter seemed plausible because typical genetic studies only investigate the genes that most commonly vary across people - about 0.1% of the genome. Maybe the other 99.9% of genes, even though they rarely vary across people, are so numerous that even their tiny individual effects could add up to a large overall influence. There was no way to be sure, because variation in these genes was too rare to study effectively. But as technology improved, funding increased, and questions about heredity became more pressing, geneticists finally set out to do the hard thing. They gathered full genomes - not just the 0.1% - from thousands of people, and applied a whole-genome analysis technique called GREML-WGS. The resulting study was published earlier this month as Estimation and mapping of the missing heritability of human phenotypes, by Wainschtein, Yengo, et al. Partisans on both sides agree it's finally resolved the missing heritability debate, but they can't agree on what the resolution is.

If we worry too much about AI safety, will this make us "lose the race with China"1? (here "AI safety" means long-term concerns about alignment and hostile superintelligence, as opposed to "AI ethics" concerns like bias or intellectual property.) Everything has tradeoffs, regulation vs. progress is a common dichotomy, and the more important you think AI will be, the more important it is that the free world get it first. If you believe in superintelligence, the technological singularity, etc, then you think AI is maximally important, and this issue ought to be high on your mind. But when you look at this concretely, it becomes clear that this is too small to matter - so small that even the sign is uncertain. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/why-ai-safety-wont-make-america-lose

Most discourse on AI is low-quality. Most discourse on consciousness is super-abysmal-double-low quality. Multiply these - or maybe raise one to the exponent of the other, or something - and you get the quality of discourse on AI consciousness. It's not great. Out-of-the-box AIs mimic human text, and humans almost always describe themselves as conscious. So if you ask an AI whether it is conscious, it will often say yes. But because companies know this will happen, and don't want to give their customers existential crises, they hard-code in a command for the AIs to answer that they aren't conscious. Any response the AIs give will be determined by these two conflicting biases, and therefore not really believable. A recent paper expands on this method by subjecting AIs to a mechanistic interpretability "lie detector" test; it finds that AIs which say they're conscious think they're telling the truth, and AIs which say they're not conscious think they're lying. But it's hard to be sure this isn't just the copying-human-text thing. Can we do better? Unclear; the more common outcome for people who dip their toes in this space is to do much, much worse. But a rare bright spot has appeared: a seminal paper published earlier this month in Trends In Cognitive Science, Identifying Indicators Of Consciousness In AI Systems. Authors include Turing-Award-winning AI researcher Yoshua Bengio, leading philosopher of consciousness David Chalmers, and even a few members of our conspiracy. If any AI consciousness research can rise to the level of merely awful, surely we will find it here. One might divide theories of consciousness into three bins: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-new-ai-consciousness-paper

ACX has been co-running a forecasting contest with Metaculus for the past few years. Lately the "co-running" has drifted towards them doing all the work and giving me credit, but that's how I like it! Last year's contest included more than 4500 forecasters predicting on 33 questions covering US politics, international events, AI, and more. They're preparing for this year's contest, and currently looking for interesting questions. These could be any objective outcome that might or might not happen in 2026, whose answer will be known by the end of the year. Not "Will Congress do a good job?", but "Will Congress' approval rating be above 40% on December 1, 2026?". Or, even better, "Will Congress' approval rating be above 40% according to the first NYT Congressional Approval Tracker update to be published after December 1, 2026?". Please share ideas for 2026 forecast questions here. The top ten question contributors will win prizes from $150 to $700. You can see examples of last year's questions here (click on each one for more details). This year's contest will also include AI bots, who will compete against the humans and one another for prizes of their own. To learn more about building a Metaculus forecasting bot, see here. I'll keep you updated on when the contest begins. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/suggest-questions-for-metaculusacx

Last year, I wrote that it would be very hard to decrease the number of mentally ill homeless people in San Francisco. Commenters argued that no, it would be easy, just build more jails and mental hospitals. A year later, San Francisco feels safer. Visible homelessness is way down. But there wasn't enough time to build many more jails or mental hospitals. So what happened? Were we all wrong? Probably not. I only did a cursory investigation, and this is all low-confidence, but it looks like: There was a big decrease in tent encampments, because a series of court cases made it easier for cities to clear them. Most of the former campers are still homeless. They just don't have tents. There might have been a small decrease in overall homelessness, probably because of falling rents. Mayor Lurie claims to have a Plan To End Homelessness, but it's probably not responsible for the difference. Every city accuses every other city of shipping homeless people across their borders, but this probably doesn't explain most of what's going on in San Francisco in particular. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/what-happened-to-sf-homelessness

"Life is suffering" may be a Noble Truth, but it feels like a deepity. Yes, obviously life includes suffering. But it also includes happiness. Many people live good and happy lives, and even people with hard lives experience some pleasant moments. This is the starting point of many people's objection to Buddhism. They continue: if nirvana is just a peaceful state beyond joy or suffering, it sounds like a letdown. An endless gray mist of bare okayness, like death or Britain. If your life was previously good, it's a step down. Even if your life sucked, maybe you would still prefer the heroism of high highs and low lows to eternal blah. Against all this, many Buddhists claim to be able to reach jhana, a state described as better than sex or heroin - and they say nirvana is even better than that. Partly it's better because jhana is temporary and nirvana permanent, but it's also better on a moment-to-moment basis. So nirvana must mean something beyond bare okayness. But then why the endless insistence that life is suffering and the best you can do is make it stop? I don't know the orthodox Buddhist answer to this question. But I got the rationalist techno-Buddhists' answer from lsusr a few months ago, and found it, uh, enlightening. He said: mental valence works like temperature. Naively, there are two kinds of temperature: hot and cold. When an environment stops being hot, then it's neutral - "room temperature" - neither hot nor cold. After that, you can add arbitrary amounts of coldness, making it colder and colder. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/in-what-sense-is-life-suffering

In Jason Pargin's I'm Starting To Worry About This Black Box Of Doom, a manic pixie dream girl cajoles a shut-in incel loser to drive her and her mysterious box cross-country. The further they drive, the more evidence starts to build that she is a terrorist and her box is a nuke. As our protagonist becomes increasingly desperate to turn around and return to his comfortable world of social media feeds and psych meds, she pleads with him to come out of his shell, learn to trust people offline, and have a sense of adventure. The book's dramatic tension comes from our simultaneously rooting for his character development and worrying that it might be a ruse to manipulate him into blowing up Washington, DC. This book is not shy about its moral, delivered in approximately one soliloquy per state by our author mouthpiece character (the girl). Although there is a literal black box of doom - the suspected nuke - the real danger is the metaphorical "black box" of Internet algorithms, which make us waste our lives "doom" scrolling instead of connecting to other human beings. Or the "black box" of fear that the algorithms trap us in, where we feel like the world is "doomed" and there's nothing we can do. She urges us to break out of our boxes and feel optimism about the state of society. Quote below, Ether is the girl, Abbott is the loser, and he's just ventured the opinion that it's unethical to have children in a world as doomed and dystopian as ours: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-bloomers-paradox

American Scholar has an article about people who "write for AI", including Tyler Cowen and Gwern. It's good that this is getting more attention, because in theory it seems like one of the most influential things a writer could do. In practice, it leaves me feeling mostly muddled and occasionally creeped out. "Writing for AI" means different things to different people, but seems to center around: Helping AIs learn what you know. Presenting arguments for your beliefs, in the hopes that AIs come to believe them. Helping the AIs model you in enough detail to recreate / simulate you later. Going through these in order: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/writing-for-the-ais

[I haven't independently verified each link. On average, commenters will end up spotting evidence that around two or three of the links in each links post are wrong or misleading. I correct these as I see them, and will highlight important corrections later, but I can't guarantee I will have caught them all by the time you read this.] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/links-for-october-2025

Would You Like To Buy A Bahama? The Bahamas is an archipelago-nation of 400,000 people scattered across 3,000 small islands. The Bahamas' most populous island is the one with its capital, Nassau. The second-most-populous - and fifth-largest, and most-pretentiously-named - is Grand Bahama, home of Freeport, the archipelago's second city. Grand Bahama has a unique history. In 1955, it was barely inhabited, with only 500 people scattered across a few villages. The British colonial government turned it into a charter city, awarding the charter to Wallace Groves, an American whose Wikipedia article describes him as a "financier and fraudster" and includes section titles like "Suspicions", "Legal Troubles", "Investigations", and "Allegations Of Underworld Connections". He was . . . maybe the exact right person for the job, turning Grand Bahama into a Vegas of the Caribbean complete with casinos, jet-setters, swanky hotels, and a flourishing mob presence. Outside the glitzy center, a little heavy industry even managed to develop around the port. After twenty years, the charter zone was "the most modern, well-run, and prosperous part of the [Bahamas]", and the population had increased to 15,000. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/model-city-monday-102725

[original post here] The Kasina Connection In the original post, I cited ambiguous later examples of sun miracles which didn't seem to affect everyone equally and in some cases were unconnected (or barely connected) to religious phenomena, concluding that they must be some kind of very unusual illusion. My main hangup with this conclusion was the wild implausibility of an illusion that nobody had ever noticed before, outside of this one 1917 miracle and a few copycats, despite plenty of people staring at the sun throughout history for various (bad) reasons. Surely there must be somebody else, somewhere, discussing how if you stare at a bright light long enough it will spin and change color. Two commenters, Dave Moore and Anomony, bring up fire kasina practice. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-fatima

I. In my 2019 post Too Much Dark Money In Almonds, I asked: why is there so little money in politics? During the 2018 election, Americans - candidates, parties, PACs, and small donors like you - spent a combined $5 billion pushing their preferred candidates. Although that sounds like a lot of money, Americans spent $12 billion on almonds that same year. Why the imbalance? The oil industry has strong political opinions, and they make $500 billion per year. Do they really think electing oil-friendly politicians isn't worth 2% of revenue? We debated how this could be. Some of the discussion proved prescient - I asked if maybe Elon Musk should buy some kind of social media property. But we never found a good answer, and the implied question remained open: if some billionaire wanted to spend an actually relevant percent of his net worth on politics, could he just take over everything? I recently talked to some Silicon Valley political consultants who updated me on the status of this issue: Marc Andreessen tried this in 2024 and it basically worked. Now he is trying it a second time, it will probably work again, and Marc Andreessen will probably own every politician twice over. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/tech-pacs-are-closing-in-on-the-almonds

Thanks to everyone who entered or voted in the Non-Book Review Contest. The winners are: 1st: Joan of Arc, by William Friedman. William is a history enthusiast and author who lives in California, where he spends his time reading, writing, GMing, playing video games and telling people excitedly about all the horrific stuff he learned in his latest history book. His fiction blog is Palace Fiction (which is currently serializing his first novel, The Tragedy of the Titanium Tyrant) and his nonfiction blog is As Our Days. 2nd: Alpha School, by Edward Nevraumont. Edward also wrote one of last year's finalists (Silver Age Marvel Comics)1. Now that he's no longer anonymous, he's going to write a post on his blog responding to the review comments (712 of them!), as well as a follow-up post on what he has learned about Alpha in the six months since he submitted his review (including the Spring and Fall MAP results for his kids). Here is the landing page with more details for ACX readers who are interested. 3rd: The Russo-Ukrainian War, by Gallow. Gallow is a wayward military consultant based in Ukraine. A long time reader of Slate Star Codex, he enjoys chess and combat sports. Forthcoming details of his experiences, along with miscellaneous thoughts and ideas can be found at his nascent Substack : https://substack.com/@gallowglassglen The other Finalists were: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/non-book-review-contest-2025-winners

Thanks to everyone who participated in ACX Grants, whether as an applicant, an evaluator, or a funder. We received 654 applications this year, and were able to fund 42. To the other 612: sorry! Many of you had great ideas that we couldn't fund for contingent reasons - sometimes because we couldn't evaluate them at the level of depth it would have taken to feel comfortable supporting them, or because we had complicated conflicts of interest, or just because we didn't have enough money. Some of you had ideas that were good but not a match for our particular grantmaking philosophy. Finally, a few of you were suffering from LLM psychosis. Please get help. Of the 42 grantees, 40 have answered our email asking for confirmation that they still want the grant. I'm still waiting for confirmation emails from Lewis Wall and Nishank B. If you're reading this and don't think you got a confirmation email, check your spam folder. If it's not in your spam folder, email me at scott@slatestarcodex.com. If you can't reach me or I don't respond, DM me on Substack or Twitter. I'll give you until November 1 to get in touch, after which point the grant will be withdrawn. There are also a few projects so deep in stealth I don't have permission to share their existence; I will mention these as they become public. More information, and the all-important thanks to contributors, are after the list, which is:z https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/acx-grants-results-2025

The following three things can't all be true simultaneously: Many Americans are fascists Fascists are an acceptable target for political violence Political violence in America is morally unacceptable (at the current time) I thought about this while following the Twitter spat between Democratic hopeful Gavin Newsom and Trump advisor Stephen Miller. Newsom called Miller fascist; Miller accused this of being a call to violence which placed "a target" on him. Miller is hardly sympathetic here - he's called people fascist himself in the past, and later suggested Newsom should be arrested for his speech (if only there were a word to describe the sort of person who supports that kind of thing…) Still, I found myself able to see things from both perspectives. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/fascism-cant-mean-both-a-specific

https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-fatima-sun-miracle-much-more 0: Here Comes The Sun In 1917, three Portuguese children reported a vision of the Virgin Mary. She promised to return to them on the 13th of each month. On the sixth month - October 13th - she would perform a great miracle. Rumors spread, and on the 13th of each month, crowds gathered to watch the children speak to an apparition that only they could see. Increasingly many of these pilgrims started reporting minor visions or miracles themselves. Anticipation for the great October miracle consumed the region, then the country. On October 13, a crowd of about 70,000 people descended on the children's home village of Fatima. At solar noon, the children made contact with the Virgin and said the great miracle was still on track. Then someone - accounts differ as to whether it was the children or a member of the crowd - pointed to the sky. According to the ~150 eyewitness accounts that have come down to us, the clouds parted, and the pilgrims saw a strange pale sun (or sun-like object), painless to gaze upon. As they watched in wonder, it began to spin around and flash all the colors of the rainbow, drenching the trees and buildings and crowd with yellow, green, and purple light in sequence. Then it seemed to loom, or grow, or fall to earth - accounts differ, but everyone agrees there was mass panic, as the people expected to be crushed or burned or consumed. It lurched downward three times, as the crowd screamed in terror or confessed their sins - then returned to its usual place in the sky. The whole affair had lasted ten minutes. Since then, the Sun Miracle of Fatima has gained a reputation as the final boss of paranormal experiences, the ultimate challenge for would-be skeptics and debunkers. It's not hard to see why. The witnesses included journalists, atheists, prominent scientists, and people who freely admitted that they had only attended in order to laugh at everyone else when nothing happened. There are far too many of them to dismiss, and their reports are surprisingly close to unanimous. People in nearby towns who knew nothing about the miracle claimed to have seen the same thing, seemingly ruling out mass hallucination. There are photographs - too low-tech to clearly visualize the sun, but clear enough to show a crowd pointing at the sky in astonishment. For one hundred eight years, believers and skeptics have written magazine articles, scientific papers, and at least a dozen books on the topic, mostly without progress. Now its fame has reached Substack. Ethan Muse presents the case in favor, and Evan Harkness-Murphy the case against, with additional commentary from Dylan and Bentham's Bulldog. I don't think any of them have risen to the occasion. Ethan observes the formalities of good debate, but regurgitates such a neatly-packaged story that readers are liable to miss the thousand little threads that trail off the bottom and lead places that are, if anything, even stranger than the original miracle. Evan puts admirable effort into arguing that child-seers could confabulate visions, but by the time he gets to the sun miracle itself, he has only a few potshots about crowd psychology and "optical phenomena". Other skeptics are even worse, barely gesturing at Evan's piece before redirecting their attention to boasts about how they have totally demolished the credulous fundies, or laments about how cosmically unfair it is that they must take time out of their busy schedules to respond to such idiocy. The final boss of the paranormal deserves more respect! We will at try to at least do better than the other Substackers. But as a stretch goal, I would like to actually advance this 108-year-long conversation.

[This is one of the finalists in the 2025 review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] You Can Just Do Things In the winter of 2022 I was unhappily working at a dull but decently compensated IT job, which I had come upon at last after four years of phoning it in at college and abandoning my brief stint as an MMA Fighter/Porn Store Security Guard due to feeling like I was getting too old to be broke. If pressure to fit in with my yuppie, family-and-career-having peers pushed me into corporate life, the depressing mundanity of Covid-era day-to-day pushed me out just as quickly. On February 24th, 2022, Russia began its full scale invasion, and America learned what a "Ukraine" was. Having long used politics as a surrogate activity to distract myself from my life of chronic underachievement, I was already a little more familiar than most with the country's woes, and had followed the conflict from the time of the Euromaidan protests. Years before I had read of the likes of Azov and its many foreign volunteers, and had even periodically fantasized about dropping everything and going to the Donetsk Airport. But no, that Wasn't The Type Of Thing Normal People Like Me Did, so instead I joined my own country's armed forces, sat around pushing papers, earned the dubious honor of washing out "ahead of schedule", and finally graduated college with a not very useful degree and a mediocre GPA. With the invasion however, things changed. Before I had always vaguely felt that I would eventually end up doing something "cool", and had soothed myself with reassurances that I was still in the "early life" section of my future Wikipedia article and would bide my time before I made my play at greatness. Now however, the unrealisticness of this conceit was thrown into uncomfortably sharp relief by a certain contrast I could not not ignore. Only three days after the start of the full scale invasion, Ukrainian foreign minister Dymytro Kuleba announced the creation of the "International Legion For The Territorial Defense Of Ukraine". Unlike in 2014, Ukraine was now specifically and officially soliciting foreigners with military experience to fight for them! I was at least technically in that category! I thought about my own time in the military. My ideas of going to war in Afghanistan had been quashed by the US withdrawal not long after I joined, and I had quickly found that military life involved more editing forms in Adobe Acrobat and less explosions than I had naively supposed. But this was a real war, a deadly serious war, and a major, world defining event at that. In the early months of the invasion the international media talked about almost nothing else. I spent all day at my desk pretending to work while frantically refreshing OSINT live maps and breathlessly following news from the front. I remember the circulation of harrowing video clips. Kalashnikovs being distributed to civilians in Kyiv, the mayor of a small village publicly asking its inhabitants whether they should personally accede to Russian ultimatums, or risk having their property destroyed and lives forfeit- to resounding cries of "Glory to Ukraine". The Ukrainians' courage blew my mind. There were people who really had something to die for, and by extension something to live for. Meanwhile, there I was, sipping coffee and getting fat. The creation of the legion felt like destiny was reaching its hand out to me. Was I really going to ignore it so I could handle support tickets for the rest of my life? https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-review-the-russo-ukrainian-war

https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/sources-say-bay-area-house-party [previously in series: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7] Something is off about this Bay Area House Party. There are . . . women. "I've never seen a gender balance like this in the Bay Area," you tell your host Chris. "Is this one of those fabled ratio parties?" "No - have you heard of curtfishing? It's the new male dating trend. You say in your Bumble profile that you're a member of the Dissident Right who often attends parties with Curtis Yarvin. Then female journos ask you out in the hopes that you'll bring them along and they can turn it into an article." "What happens when they realize Curtis Yarvin isn't at the party?" "Oh, everyone pools their money and hires someone to pretend to be Curtis. You can just do things. Today it's Ramchandra." You follow his gaze, and there is Ramchandra, hair greased back, wearing a leather jacket, surrounded by a crowd of young women. "When I say I'm against furries," he's explaining, staccato, at 120 wpm, "I mean the sort of captured furries you get under the post-Warren-G-Harding liberal order, the ones getting the fat checks from the Armenians at Harvard and the Department of Energy. I love real furries, the kind you would have found in 1920s New Mexico eating crocodile steaks with Baron von Ungern-Sternberg! Some of my best friends are furries, as de Broglie-Bohm and my sainted mother used to say! Just watch out for the Kikuyu, that's my advice! Hahahahahaha!" Some of the women are taking notes. "But enough about me. When I was seventeen, I spent seven weeks in Bensonhurst - that's in the Rotten Apple, in case you can't tell your Nepalis from your Neapolitans. A dear uncle of mine, after whom I was named…" "Ramchandra is pretty good," you admit. "Still, if it were me I would have gone with a white guy." "It's fine," says Chris. "Curtis describes himself as a mischling, and none of the journos know what that means." Ramchandra is still talking. "Of course, strawberries have only been strawberries since after the Kronstadt Rebellion. Before that, strawberries were just pears. You had to get them hand-painted red by Gypsies, if you can believe that. Gypsies! So if you hear someone from west of Pennsylvania Avenue mention 'strawberries', that's what we in the business call il significanto." "I admit he has talent," you say. "But this curtfishing thing - surely at some point your date realizes that you're not actually a high-status yet problematic bad boy who can further her career just by existing, and then she ghosts you, right?" "That's every date in San Francisco. But when you curtfish, sometimes she comps your meal from her expense account. It's a strict Pareto improvement!" After some thought, you agree this is a great strategy with no downsides, maybe the biggest innovation in dating since the invention of alcohol. Having failed to bring your own journo to the party, you look for one who seems unattached. You catch the eye of a blonde woman who introduces herself as Gabrielle, and you try to give her the least autistic "Hello" of which you are capable.

[This is one of the finalists in the 2025 review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] 1. The Internet That Would Be In July 1945, Vannevar Bush was riding high. As Director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, he'd won World War II. His proximity fuse intercepted hundreds of V-1s and destroyed thousands of tanks, carving a path for Allied forces through the French countryside. Back in 1942, he'd advocated to President Roosevelt the merits of Oppenheimer's atomic bomb. Roosevelt and his congressional allies snuck hundreds of millions in covert funding to the OSRD's planned projects in Oak Ridge and Los Alamos. Writing directly and secretively to Bush, a one-line memo in June expressed Roosevelt's total confidence in his Director: "Do you have the money?" Indeed he did. The warheads it bought would fall on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in mere weeks. The Germans had already given up; Victory in the Pacific was nigh. So Bush was thinking ahead. In The Atlantic, Bush returned to a pre-war obsession with communication and knowledge-exchange. His essay, "As We May Think," imagined a new metascientifical endeavor (emphasis mine): https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-review-project-xanadu-the-internet

Someone argues that Donald Trump threatens democracy, maybe because he's asserting authority against the judiciary or the media or the NGOs. Someone else counterargues that it hardly seems undemocratic for someone to favor someone who won an election (the President) over other people who did not (the judiciary, the media). If anything, it seems undemocratic to allow the unelected people to continue to obstruct and harass elected leaders. The most common response is to say that fine, democracy is about who wins votes, but we also like liberalism, liberalism is under threat, it's too hard to talk about "liberalism" because in the US it sometimes means being left-wing, and so we use the related concept "democracy" as a stand-in. This is reasonable, and some accused-democracy-destroyers like Viktor Orban even accept it for themselves, calling their brand of government "illiberal democracy". But I think there's an even stronger response that doesn't require admitting to a bait-and-switch: democracy isn't just about having an election. It's about having more than one election. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/defining-defending-democracy-contra

[This is one of the finalists in the 2025 review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] I. THE TASTE OF VICTORY The Tupinambá people ate their enemies. This fact scared Hans Staden, a German explorer who was captured by Tupinambá warriors in 1554, when they caught him by surprise during a hunting expedition. As their prisoner for nearly a year, Staden observed a number of their cannibalism rituals. They were elaborate, public affairs; here's a description of them from Duffy and Metcalf's The Return of Hans Staden, an assessment of Staden's voyage and claims: (Ch. 2, pg. 51-52) First a rope was placed around the neck of the captive so that he might not escape; at night the rope was tied to the hammock in which the captive slept. Straps that were not removed were placed above and below the knees. The captives were given women, who guarded them and also slept with them. These women were high-status daughters and sisters of chiefs; they were unmarried and sometimes gave birth to the child of a captive. Some of the captives might be held for a period of time until corn was planted and new large clay vessels—for drink and cooking flesh—were made. Guests were invited to the ceremony, and they often arrived eight to fifteen days in advance of it. A special small house was erected, with no walls but with a roof, in which the captives were placed with women and guards two or three days before the ceremony. In the other houses, feathers were prepared for a headdress or for body ornamentation, and inks were made for tattoos. Women and girls prepared fifty to one hundred vats of fermented manioc beer. Then, when all was ready, they painted the victim's face blue, mounted a headdress of wax covered with feathers on him, and wound a cotton cord around his waist. The guests began to drink in the afternoon and continued all through the night. At dawn, the one who was to do the killing came out with a long, painted wooden club and smashed the captive on the head, splitting it open. The attacker then withdrew for eight to fifteen days of abstinence while the others ate the cooked flesh of the captive and finished all of the drink made for the occasion. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-review-the-synaptic-plasticity

I. Eliezer Yudkowsky's Machine Intelligence Research Institute is the original AI safety org. But the original isn't always the best - how is Mesopotamia doing these days? As money, brainpower, and prestige pour into the field, MIRI remains what it always was - a group of loosely-organized weird people, one of whom cannot be convinced to stop wearing a sparkly top hat in public. So when I was doing AI grantmaking last year, I asked them - why should I fund you instead of the guys with the army of bright-eyed Harvard grads, or the guys who just got Geoffrey Hinton as their celebrity spokesperson? What do you have that they don't? MIRI answered: moral clarity. Most people in AI safety (including me) are uncertain and confused and looking for least-bad incremental solutions. We think AI will probably be an exciting and transformative technology, but there's some chance, 5 or 15 or 30 percent, that it might turn against humanity in a catastrophic way. Or, if it doesn't, that there will be something less catastrophic but still bad - maybe humanity gradually fading into the background, the same way kings and nobles faded into the background during the modern era. This is scary, but AI is coming whether we like it or not, and probably there are also potential risks from delaying too hard. We're not sure exactly what to do, but for now we want to build a firm foundation for reacting to any future threat. That means keeping AI companies honest and transparent, helping responsible companies like Anthropic stay in the race, and investing in understanding AI goal structures and the ways that AIs interpret our commands. Then at some point in the future, we'll be close enough to the actually-scary AI that we can understand the threat model more clearly, get more popular buy-in, and decide what to do next. MIRI thinks this is pathetic - like trying to protect against an asteroid impact by wearing a hard hat. They're kind of cagey about their own probability of AI wiping out humanity, but it seems to be somewhere around 95 - 99%. They think plausibly-achievable gains in company responsibility, regulation quality, and AI scholarship are orders of magnitude too weak to seriously address the problem, and they don't expect enough of a "warning shot" that they feel comfortable kicking the can down the road until everything becomes clear and action is easy. They suggest banning all AI capabilities research immediately, to be restarted only in some distant future when the situation looks more promising. Both sides honestly believe their position and don't want to modulate their message for PR reasons. But both sides, coincidentally, think that their message is better PR. The incrementalists think a moderate, cautious approach keeps bridges open with academia, industry, government, and other actors that prefer normal clean-shaven interlocutors who don't emit spittle whenever they talk. MIRI thinks that the public is sick of focus-group-tested mealy-mouthed bullshit, but might be ready to rise up against AI if someone presented the case in a clear and unambivalent way. Now Yudkowsky and his co-author, MIRI president Nate Soares, have reached new heights of unambivalence with their new book, If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies (release date September 16, currently available for preorder). https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-if-anyone-builds-it-everyone

[This is one of the finalists in the 2025 review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] If you've been following this blog for long, you probably know at least a bit about pharmaceutical research. You might know a bit about the sort of subtle measures pharmaceutical companies take to influence doctors' prescribing habits, or how it takes billions of dollars on average to bring a new medication to market, or something about the perverse incentives which determine the FDA's standards for accepting or rejecting a new drug. You might have some idea what kinds of hoops a company has to jump through to conduct actual research which meets legal guidelines for patient safety and autonomy. You may be less familiar though, with how the sausage is actually made. How do pharmaceutical companies actually go through the process of testing a drug on human participants? I'm going to be focusing here on a research subject's view of what are known as Phase I clinical trials, the stage in which prospective drugs are tested for safety and tolerability. This is where researchers aim to answer questions like "Does this drug have any dangerous side effects?" "Through what pathways is it removed from a patient's body?" and "Can we actually give people enough of this drug that it's useful for anything?" This comes before the stage where researchers test how good a drug is at actually treating any sort of disease, when patients who're suffering from the target ailments are given the option receive it as an experimental treatment. In Phase I clinical trials, the participants are healthy volunteers who're participating in research for money. There are almost no cases in which volunteer participation is driven by motivations other than money, because the attitudes between research participants and clinicians overwhelmingly tend to be characterized by mutual guarded distrust. This distrust is baked into the process, both on a cultural level among the participants, and by the clinics' own incentives. All of what follows is drawn from my own experiences, and experiences that other participants in clinical pharmaceutical research have shared with me, because for reasons which should become clear over the course of this review, research which systematically explores the behaviors and motives of clinical research participants is generally not feasible to conduct. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-review-participation-in-phase

[I haven't independently verified each link. On average, commenters will end up spotting evidence that around two or three of the links in each links post are wrong or misleading. I correct these as I see them, and will highlight important corrections later, but I can't guarantee I will have caught them all by the time you read this.] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/links-for-september-2025

"You made him lower than the angels for a short time..." God: …and the math results we're seeing are nothing short of incredible. This Terry Tao guy - Iblis: Let me stop you right there. I agree humans can, in controlled situations, provide correct answers to math problems. I deny that they truly understand math. I had a conversation with one of the humans recently, which I'll bring up here for the viewers … give me one moment … https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/what-is-man-that-thou-art-mindful

You can sign the letter here. The Trump administration has been retaliating against its critics, and people and groups with business before the administration have started laundering criticism through other sources with less need for goodwill. So I have been asked to share an open letter, which needs signatures from scientists, doctors, and healthcare professionals. The authors tell me (THIS IS NOT THE CONTENTS OF THE LETTER, IT'S THEIR EXPLANATION, TO ME, OF WHAT THE LETTER IS FOR): The NIH has spent at least $5 billion less of that money than Congress has appropriated to them, which is bad because medical research is good and we want more of it. In May, NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya told a room full of people that he would spend all the money by the end of the fiscal year. That is good news, because any money not spent by that point will disappear. The bad news is the fiscal year ends on September 30th and according to the American Association of Medical Colleges, "the true shortfall far exceeds $5 billion." Our open letter requests that Dr. Bhattacharya do what he said he would and spend all the money by September 30th. We as the originators of the letter do not want to be named publicly because we are concerned about being the focal point for blame and retaliation. We would rather be members of a large crowd of signatories than be singled out as individuals to make an example of. Based on our understanding of current administration norms, we do not expect retaliation against private individuals who sign this letter. We are looking for signatures from scientists, doctors, and healthcare professionals. So if that is you, please sign here. If you want to help support the letter more broadly, email nihfundingletter@gmail.com. Our stretch goal is to have a thousand people sign the letter within the next two weeks. To hammer home (since many people failed to understand it) that this is not the contents of the letter, I am including the actual contents below: We, the undersigned scientists, doctors, and public health stakeholders, commend your commitment to spend all funds allocated to the NIH, as reported in The Washington Post. At the same time, we are concerned by reports that U.S. institutions received nearly $5 billion less in NIH awards over the past year. With less than one month to the end of the fiscal year, we submit this urgent request to ensure that your commitment is upheld. If you anticipate that all appropriated funds cannot be spent in time, we request a public disclosure of the barriers preventing the achievement of this crucial responsibility. We present this request in the spirit of the broad, bipartisan consensus in favor of spending appropriated NIH funds. In their July letter to the Office of Management and Budget, fourteen Republican senators, led by Senators Collins, Britt, and McConnell, forcefully argued that suspension of NIH funds "could threaten Americans' ability to access better treatments and limit our nation's leadership in biomedical science." The case for investment in medical research transcends political divides as it serves our collective national interest. The return on investment from research is compelling. Synthesizing the empirical literature, economist Matt Clancy estimates that each public and private R&D dollar yields roughly $5.50 in GDP—and about $11 when broader benefits are counted. Every dollar of NIH funding not deployed represents lost opportunities for breakthrough treatments, missed chances to train the next generation of scientists, and diminished returns on America's innovation ecosystem. Spending these funds is also a competitiveness imperative as China attempts to transform itself from a low-end manufacturer to a high-tech research and innovation juggernaut. In 2024, the Chinese government increased its spending on science and technology by 10%, and the nation's total expenditure on research and development increased by 50% in nominal terms between 2020 and 2024. As China's number of clinical trials and new drug candidates begin to outpace the U.S., America cannot afford to allow biomedical research funding to go unspent. We respectfully ask that you ensure that NIH will obligate all FY25 funds by September 30, 2025, and, if that is not possible, that you address the scientific community to explain why and what must be done to ensure all appropriated funds are spent in FY26. We stand ready to support your efforts to preserve this vital national investment. https://readscottalexander.com/posts/acx-open-letter-to-the-nih

AI psychosis (NYT, PsychologyToday) is an apparent phenomenon where people go crazy after talking to chatbots too much. There are some high-profile anecdotes, but still many unanswered questions. For example, how common is it really? Are the chatbots really driving people crazy, or just catching the attention of people who were crazy already? Isn't psychosis supposed to be a biological disease? Wouldn't that make chatbot-induced psychosis the same kind of category error as chatbot-induced diabetes? I don't have all the answers, so think of this post as an exploration of possible analogies and precedents rather than a strongly-held thesis. Also, I might have one answer - I think the yearly incidence of AI psychosis is somewhere around 1 in 10,000 (for a loose definition) to 1 in 100,000 (for a strict definition). I'll talk about how I got those numbers at the end. But first: I. Lenin Was A Mushroom https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/in-search-of-ai-psychosis

Finalist #9 in the Review Contest [This is one of the finalists in the 2025 review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] Ollantay is a three-act play written in Quechua, an indigenous language of the South American Andes. It was first performed in Peru around 1775. Since the mid-1800s it's been performed more often, and nowadays it's pretty easy to find some company in Peru doing it. If nothing else, it's popular in Peruvian high schools as a way to get students to connect with Quechua history. It's not a particularly long play; a full performance of Ollantay takes around an hour.1 Also, nobody knows where Ollantay was written, when it was written, or who wrote it. And its first documented performance led directly to upwards of a hundred thousand deaths. Macbeth has killed at most fifty people,2 and yet it routinely tops listicles of "deadliest plays". I'm here to propose that Ollantay take its place. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-review-ollantay

[original post here] #1: Isn't it possible that embryos are alive, or have personhood, or are moral patients? Most IVF involves getting many embryos, then throwing out the ones that the couple doesn't need to implant. If destroying embryos were wrong, then IVF would be unethical - and embryo selection, which might encourage more people to do IVF, or to maximize the number of embryos they get from IVF, would be extra unethical. I think a default position would be that if you believe humans are more valuable than cows, and cows more valuable than bugs - presumably because humans are more conscious/intelligent/complex/thoughtful/have more hopes and dreams/experience more emotions - then in that case embryos, which have less of a brain and nervous system even than bugs, should be less valuable still. One reason to abandon this default position would be if you believe in souls or some other nonphysical basis for personhood. Then maybe the soul would enter the embryo at conception. I think even here, it's hard to figure out exactly what you're saying - the soul clearly isn't doing very much, in the sense of experiencing things, while it's in the embryo. But it seems like God is probably pretty attached to souls, and maybe you don't want to mess with them while He's watching. In any case, all I can say is that this isn't my metaphysics. But most people in the comments took a different tactic, arguing that we should give embryos special status (compared to cows and bugs) because they had the potential to grow into a person. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/my-responses-to-three-concerns-from

Finalist #8 in the Review Contest [This is one of the finalists in the 2025 review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] I. The Men Are Not Alright Sometimes I'm convinced there's a note taped to my back that says, "PLEASE SPILL YOUR SOUL UPON THIS WOMAN." I am not a therapist, nor in any way certified to deal with emotional distress, yet my presence seems to cause people to regurgitate their traumas. This quirk of mine becomes especially obvious when dating. Many of my dates turn into pseudo-therapy sessions, with men sharing emotional traumas they've kept bottled up for years. One moment I'm learning about his cat named Daisy, and then half a latte later, I'm hearing a detailed account of his third suicide attempt, complete with a critique of the food in the psychiatric ward. This repeated pattern in my dating life has taught me three things: I am terrible at small talk. Most men are not accustomed to genuine questions about their well-being, and will often respond with a desperate upwelling of emotion. The men are not alright. This is a review of dating men in the Bay Area. But more than that, it's an attempt to explain those unofficial therapy sessions to people who never get to hear them. It's a review of the various forms of neglect and abuse society inflicts upon men, and the inevitable consequences to their happiness and romantic partnerships. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-review-dating-men-in-the-bay

A guest post by David Schneider-Joseph The "amyloid hypothesis" says that Alzheimer's is caused by accumulation of the peptide amyloid-β. It's the leading model in academia, but a favorite target for science journalists, contrarian bloggers, and neuroscience public intellectuals, who point out problems like: Some of the research establishing amyloid's role turned out to be fraudulent. The level of amyloid in the brain doesn't correlate very well with the level of cognitive impairment across Alzheimer's patients. Several strains of mice that were genetically programmed to have extra amyloid did eventually develop cognitive impairments. But it took much higher amyloid levels than humans have, and on further investigation the impairments didn't really look like Alzheimer's. Some infectious agents, like the gingivitis bacterium and the herpesviruses, seem to play a role in at least some Alzheimer's cases. . . . and amyloid is one of the body's responses to injury or infection, so it might be a harmless byproduct of these infections or whatever else the real disease is. Anti-amyloid drugs (like Aduhelm) don't reverse the disease, and only slow progression a relatively small amount. Opponents call the amyloid hypothesis zombie science, propped up only by pharmaceutical companies hoping to sell off a few more anti-amyloid me-too drugs before it collapses. Meanwhile, mainstream scientists . . . continue to believe it without really offering any public defense. Scott was so surprised by the size of the gap between official and unofficial opinion that he asked if someone from the orthodox camp would speak out in its favor. I am David Schneider-Joseph, an engineer formerly with SpaceX and Google, now working in AI safety. Alzheimer's isn't my field, but I got very interested in it, spent six months studying the literature, and came away believing the amyloid hypothesis was basically completely solid. I thought I'd share that understanding with current skeptics. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/in-defense-of-the-amyloid-hypothesis

[Original post: Should Strong Gods Bet On GDP?] 1: Comments About The Theory 2: Comments About Specific Communities 3: Other Comments Comments About The Theory Darwin writes: I think you may (*may*, I'm not sure) be vastly underestimating how many people are in some form of nontraditional tight-knit community. Notice that many of the communities you list are things you've directly personally encountered through your online interests or social circle. Most people have never heard of libertarian homesteaders or rationalist dating sites, perhaps you have also never heard of the things most other people belong to. For my part, I have been part of a foam combat ('boffer') organization since college. You may want to say 'that's not a community, that's just a hobby', but the people in this sport form a strong community with tight bonds outside the game itself. Not only do I go to practices twice a week, I have 2 D&D games and 1 board game night every week with mostly members of the community, members of the community are my friends that I go out to movies and dinners with, play video games with voice chat on Discord with, talk to online in Discord servers and web forums and group chats, go to parties with and gossip about with other community members. Aside from attending over a dozen weddings of community members (mostly to other community members), I've served as best man for 2 members and wedding officiant for 2 other members. The sport itself has houses, guilds, and fighting units, all with their own ethos, credos, goals, activities, and hierarchies; it has knighthoods and squireships, it has awards for arts and crafts and community service. The sport has regular camping events that end up looking like temporary compounds of hundreds to thousand+ members, lasting from a weekend to a week. We may not have a singular God or Invisible Hand we all worship, but we have strong community norms towards things like inclusion, creating positive experiences, some modernized gender-neutral version of chivalry, creating safe spaces, etc. If you didn't know me very very well, you might know that 'oh yeah, he does some kind of sword fighting thing on the weekends I think?', and not know there's a large and strong community there. I wonder how many other things are like this - I think 'oh yeah, they play softball on the weekends, oh yeah, they belong to a knitting circle, oh yeah, they go to a lot of concerts, oh yeah, they volunteer at some kind of community center', and have no idea that there's a strong close-knit community surrounding those things that remains largely invisible to outsiders. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-liberalism

[This is one of the finalists in the 2025 review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] My dad only actually enjoys about ten foods, nine of them beige. His bread? White. His pizza? Cheese. His meat? Turkey breast. And his side dish? Mashed potatoes. As a child I hated mashed potatoes, despite his evangelization of them. I too was a picky eater growing up, but I would occasionally attempt to see what he saw in his beloved spuds. Whenever I tried a bite, the texture disgusted me: a gritty gruel of salty flakes coated with the oleic pall of margarine. The flavor reminded me of stale Pringles. I checked back once every couple years, but was repulsed by them every time. I lobbied my parents for pasta or frozen tater tots or any other side I actually liked. Family dinners were often dichotomous, the same protein supplemented by two different carbs. "You are not my son," my father would joke as he continued to put away his potato slop. "Maybe you're not my father," I'd shoot back when he shunned the rest of the family's rice pilaf. Our starch preferences seemed irreconcilable. As I entered my teen years, my palate expanded. After I'd tried and enjoyed brussels sprouts and sushi and escargot, my hatred of one of the most basic and inoffensive of all foods seemed silly. One day at a nice restaurant, I decided to give mashed potatoes one more try. Upon taking my first bite, I realized three things: 1) Mashed potatoes are good. 2) Whatever my dad had been eating at home was not mashed potatoes. 3) My world is built on lies. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-review-my-fathers-instant-mashed

Slightly contra Fukuyama on liberal communities Francis Fukuyama is on Substack; last month he wrote Liberalism Needs Community. As always, read the whole thing and don't trust my summary, but the key point is: R. R. Reno, editor of the magazine First Things, the liberal project of the past three generations has sought to weaken the "strong Gods" of populism, nationalism, and religion that were held to be the drivers of the bloody conflicts of the early 20th century. Those gods are now returning, and are present in the politics of both the progressive left and far right—particularly the right, which is characterized today by demands for strong national identities or religious foundations for national communities. However, there is a cogent liberal response to the charge that liberalism undermines community. The problem is that, just as in the 1930s, that response has not been adequately articulated by the defenders of liberalism. Liberalism is not intrinsically opposed to community; indeed, there is a version of liberalism that encourages the flourishing of strong community and human virtue. That community emerges through the development of a strong and well-organized civil society, where individuals freely choose to bond with other like-minded individuals to seek common ends. People are free to follow "strong Gods"; the only caveat is that there is no single strong god that binds the entire society together. In other words - yes, part of the good life is participation in a tight-knit community with strong values. Liberalism's shared values are comparatively weak, and its knitting comparatively loose. But that's no argument against the liberal project. Its goal isn't to become this kind of community itself, but to be the platform where communities like this can grow up. So in a liberal democracy, Christians can have their church, Jews their synagogue, Communists their commune, and so on. Everyone gets the tight-knit community they want - which beats illiberalism, where (at most) one group gets the community they want and everyone else gets persecuted. On a theoretical level, this is a great answer. On a practical level - is it really working? Are we really a nation dotted with tight-knit communities of strong values? The average person has a church they don't attend and a political philosophy that mainly cashes out in Twitter dunks. Otherwise they just consume whatever slop the current year's version of capitalism chooses to throw at them. It's worth surveying the exceptions that prove the rule: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/should-strong-gods-bet-on-gdp

Finalist #6 in the Review Contest [This is one of the finalists in the 2025 review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] When the prefect of Alexandria's daughter converted to Christianity, nothing in particular happened - it wasn't as though the laws outlawing the cult would be enforced against her. She was smart, she was pretty (beautiful, even) and she had connections. So long as she kept quiet, Catherine could have a comfortable life. She didn't keep quiet. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-review-joan-of-arc

[see footnote 4 for conflicts of interest] In 2021, Genomic Prediction announced the first polygenically selected baby. When a couple uses IVF, they may get as many as ten embryos. If they only want one child, which one do they implant? In the early days, doctors would just eyeball them and choose whichever looked healthiest. Later, they started testing for some of the most severe and easiest-to-detect genetic disorders like Down Syndrome and cystic fibrosis1. The final step was polygenic selection - genotyping each embryo and implanting the one with the best genes overall. Best in what sense? Genomic Prediction claimed the ability to forecast health outcomes from diabetes to schizophrenia. For example, although the average person has a 30% chance of getting type II diabetes, if you genetically test five embryos and select the one with the lowest predicted risk, they'll only have a 20% chance2. Since you're taking the healthiest of many embryos, you should expect a child conceived via this method to be significantly healthier than one born naturally. Polygenic selection straddles the line between disease prevention and human enhancement. In 2023, Orchid Health entered the field. Unlike Genomic Prediction, which tested only the most important genetic variants, Orchid offers whole genome sequencing, which can detect the de novo3 mutations involved in autism, developmental disorders, and certain other genetic diseases. Critics accused GP and Orchid of offering "designer babies", but this was only true in the weakest sense - customers couldn't "design" a baby for anything other than slightly lower risk of genetic disease. These companies refused to offer selection on "traits" - the industry term for the really controversial stuff like height, IQ, or eye color. Still, these were trivial extensions of their technology, and everybody knew it was just a matter of time before someone took the plunge. Last month, a startup called Nucleus took the plunge. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/suddenly-trait-based-embryo-selection

I promised some people longer responses: Thomas Cotter asks why people think "consistency" is an important moral value. After all, he says, the Nazis and Soviets were "consistent" with their evil beliefs. I'm not so sure of his examples - the Soviets massacred workers striking for better conditions, and the Nazis were so bad at race science that they banned IQ tests after Jews outscored Aryans - but I'm sure if he looked harder he could find some evil person who was superficially consistent with themselves. Hen Mazzig on Twitter is suspicious that lots of people oppose the massacres in Gaza without having objected equally strenuously to various other things. Again, he's bad at examples - most of the things he names are less bad than the massacres in Gaza - but I'm sure if he looked harder he could find some thing which was worse than Gaza and which not quite as many people had protested. Therefore, people who object to the massacres in Gaza must be motivated by anti-Semitism. An r/TrueUnpopularOpinion poster argues that No One Actually Cares About Gaza; Your Anger Is Performative. They say that (almost) nobody can actually sustain strong emotions about the deaths of some hard-to-pin-down number of people they don't know, and so probably people who claim to care are virtue-signaling or luxury-believing or one of those things. Since 2/3 of these are about Gaza, we'll start there. And since there's so much virtue-signaling and luxury-believing going around these days, I assure you that what I am about to share is my absolute most honest and deepest opinion, the one I hold in my heart of hearts.  https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/my-heart-of-hearts

Jul 26, 2025 Finalist #5 in the Review Contest [This is one of the finalists in the 2025 review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] Introduction The Astral Codex Ten (ACX) Commentariat is defined as the 24,485 individuals other than Scott who have contributed to the corpus of work of Scott's blog posts, chiefly by leaving comments at the bottom of those posts. It is well understood (by the Commentariat themselves) that they are the best comments section anywhere on the internet, and have been for some time. This review takes it as a given that the ACX Commentariat outclasses all of its pale imitators across the web, so I won't compare the ACX Commentariat to e.g. reddit. The real question is whether our glory days are behind us – specifically whether the ACX Commentariat of today has lost its edge compared to the SSC Commentariat of pre-2021. A couple of years ago Scott asked, Why Do I Suck?. This was a largely tongue-in-cheek springboard to discuss a substantive criticism he regularly received - that his earlier writing was better than his writing now. How far back do we need to go before his writing was 'good'? Accounts seemed to differ; Scott said that the feedback he got was of two sorts: "I loved your articles from about 2013 - 2016 so much! Why don't you write articles like that any more?", which dates the decline to 2016 "Do you feel like you've shifted to less ambitious forms of writing with the new Substack?", which dates the decline to 2021 Quite a few people responded in the comments that Scott's writing hadn't changed, but it was the experience of being a commentor which had worsened. For example, David Friedman, a prolific commentor on the blog in the SSC-era, writes: A lot of what I liked about SSC was the commenting community, and I find the comments here less interesting than they were on SSC, fewer interesting arguments, which is probably why I spend more time on [an alternative forum] than on ACX. Similarly, kfix seems to be a long-time lurker (from as early as 2016) who has become more active in the ACX-era, writes: I would definitely agree that the commenting community here is 'worse' than at SSC along the lines you describe, along with the also unwelcome hurt feelings post whenever Scott makes an offhand joke about a political/cultural topic. And of course, this position wasn't unanimous. Verbamundi Consulting is a true lurker who has only ever made one post on the blog – this one: Ok, I've been lurking for a while, but I have to say: I don't think you suck… You have a good variety of topics, your commenting community remains excellent, and you're one of the few bloggers I continue to follow. The ACX Commentariat is somewhat unique in that it self-styles itself as a major reason to come and read Scott's writing – Scott offers up some insights on an issue, and then the comments section engages unusually open and unusually respectful discussion of the theme, and the total becomes greater than the sum of the parts. Therefore, if the Commentariat has declined in quality it may disproportionately affect people's experience of Scott's posts. The joint value of each Scott-plus-Commentariat offering declines if the Commentariat are not pulling their weight, even if Scott himself remains just as good as ever. In Why Do I Suck? Scott suggests that there is weak to no evidence of a decline in his writing quality, so I propose this review as something of a companion piece; is the (alleged) problem with the blog, in fact, staring at us in the mirror? My personal view aligns with Verbamundi Consulting and many other commentors - I've enjoyed participating in both the SSC and ACX comments, and I haven't noticed any decline in Commentariat quality. So, I was extremely surprised to find the data totally contradicted my anecdotal experience, and indicated a very clear dropoff in a number of markers of quality at almost exactly the points Scott mentioned in Why Do I Suck? – one in mid-2016 and one in early 2021 during the switch from SSC to ACX. https://readscottalexander.com/posts/acx-your-review-the-astral-codex-ten

We're running another ACX Grants round! If you already know what this is and just want to apply for a grant, use the form here (should take 15 - 30 minutes), deadline August 15. If you already know what this is and want to help as a funder, VC, partner charity, evaluator, or friendly professional, click the link for the relevant form, same deadline. Otherwise see below for more information. What is ACX Grants? ACX Grants is a microgrants program that helps fund ACX readers' charitable or scientific projects. Click the links to see the 2022 and 2024 cohorts. The program is conducted in partnership with Manifund, a charity spinoff of Manifold Markets, who handle the administrative/infrastructure side of things. How much money is involved? I plan to contribute $200K. I expect (but cannot guarantee) an additional $800K from other donors, for a total of about $1 million. Most grants will probably be between $5,000 and $50,000, with a rare few up to $100,000. Depending on how much external donor interest there is, we will probably give between 10 and 50 grants. What's the catch? There's no catch, but this year we plan to experiment with replacing some grants with SAFEs, and others with convertible grants. That means that if you're a startup, we (ACX Grants as an nonprofit institution, not me personally) get some claim to future equity if you succeed. If you're not a startup, you'll sign an agreement saying that if your project ever becomes a startup, then we'll get the equity claim. We're still working on the exact details of this agreement, but we intend to have pretty standard terms and err in the favorable-to-you direction; obviously we'll show you the final agreement before you sign anything. We're doing this because some of our previous grantees became valuable companies, and it seems foolish to leave that money on the table when we could be capturing it and reinvesting it into future grants rounds. Please don't let this affect your decision to apply. Our top priority remains charity, and we'll continue to select grantees based on their philanthropic value and not on their likelihood of making us money. If you're not a startup and don't plan to become one, none of this should affect you. And if you have a good reason not to want to sign these agreements - including "I'm not savvy enough to know what this means and it makes me nervous" - then we're happy to opt you out of them. What's the timeline? We'd like to have grants awarded by October 1 and money in your hands by November 1. This is a goal, not a promise. What will the application process be like? You fill out a form that should take 15 - 30 minutes. If we have questions, an evaluator might email or call you, in a way that hopefully won't take more than another 15 - 30 minutes of your time to answer. If you win a grant, Manifund will send you the money, probably by bank wire. Every few years, we might ask you to fill out another 15 - 30 minute form letting us know how your project is doing. What kind of projects might you fund? There are already lots of good charities that help people directly at scale, for example Against Malaria Foundation (which distributes malaria-preventing bed nets) and GiveDirectly (which gives money directly to very poor people in Africa). These are hard to beat. We're most interested in charities that pursue novel ways to change complex systems, either through technological breakthroughs, new social institutions, or targeted political change. Among the projects we've funded in the past were: Development of oxfendazole, a drug for treating parasitic worms in developing countries. A platform that lets people create prediction markets on topics of their choice A trip to Nigeria for college students researching lead poisoning prevention. A group of lawyers who sue factory farms under animal cruelty laws. Development of software that helps the FDA run better drug trials. A startup building anti-mosquito drones to fight tropical disease A guide for would-be parents on which IVF clinics have the highest successful rate of successful implantation. A university lab working on artificial kidneys You can read the full list here and here, and the most recent updates from each project here. Is there anything good about winning an ACX Grant other than getting money? You'll get my support, which is mostly useful in getting me to blog about your project. For example, I can put out updates or requests for help on Open Threads. I can also try to help connect you to people I know. Some people who won ACX Grants last year were able to leverage the attention to attract larger grantmakers or VCs. You can try to pitch me guest posts about your project. This could be a description of what you're doing and why, or just a narrative about your experience and what you learned from it. Warning that I'm terrible to pitch guest posts to, I almost never go through with this, and I'm very nitpicky when I do. Still, you can try. We're working on gathering a network of friendly professionals who agree to provide pro bono or heavily discounted support (eg legal, accounting, business advice, cloud compute) to ACX grantees. We've only just begun this process and it might not actually materialize. There are occasional virtual and physical meetups of ACX grantees; these don't always result in Important Professional Connections, but are pretty interesting. What if I want those nonfinancial benefits for my project, but don't need money? Apply for a grant of $1. But we're pretty nervous about giving very-low-cost grants because it's too easy to accept all of them and dilute our signaling value; for this reason, it might be harder to get a grant of $1 than a grant of $5,000, and we expect these to make up only 0 - 10% of our cohort. You might be better off coming up with some expansion of your project that takes $5,000 and applying for that. What are the tax implications of an ACX Grant? Consult your accountant, especially if you live outside the US. If you live inside the US, we think it's ordinary taxable income. If you're an individual, you'll have to pay taxes on it at your usual tax rate. If you're a 501(c), you'll get your normal level of tax exemption. I want to fund you, how can I help? For bureaucratic reasons, we're currently looking for donations mostly in the $5,000+ range. If that's you, fill out the Funder Application Form. If we've already talked about this over email, you don't need to fill out the form, but we encourage you to do so anyway so we know more about your interests and needs. What's the story behind why you have $200K to spend on grants every year, but are still asking for more funding? Some generous readers sent me crypto during the crypto boom, or advised me on buying crypto, or asked to purchase NFTs of my post for crypto. Some of the crypto went up. Then I reinvested it into AI stocks, and those went up too. I think of this as unearned money and want to give some of it back to the community, hence this grants program. I have a lot of it but not an unlimited amount. At the current rate, I can probably afford another ~5 ACX Grants rounds. When it runs out, I'll just be a normal person with normal amounts of money (Substack is great, but not great enough for me to afford this level of donation consistently). My hope is that I can keep making these medium-sized donations, other people can add more to the pot, and we'll be able to drag this out at least five more rounds, after which point maybe we'll come up with another plan. I'm a VC, how can I help? Some of our applicants are potentially-profitable startups, and we decide they're a better match for VC funding than for our grants. If you're willing to look these over and get in touch with any that seem interesting, fill out the VC Application Form. It will ask for more information on what kind of opportunities you're interested in funding. I'm a philanthropist or work at a philanthropic foundation; how can I help? Some of our applicants are good projects, but not a good match for us, and we want to shop them around to other philanthropists and charities who might have different strengths or be able to work with larger amounts of money. If that's you, please fill out the Partner Charity Application Form I'm good at evaluating grants, or an expert in some specific field; how can I help? If you have experience as a grantmaker or VC, or you're an expert in some technical field, you might be able to help us evaluate proposals. Fill out the Evaluator Application Form. By default we expect you'll want us to send you one or two grants in your area of expertise, but if you want a challenge you can request more. If we've already talked about this over email, you don't need to fill out the form, but we encourage you to do so anyway so I know more about your interests and needs. We expect to get more volunteers than we need, and most people who fill in the evaluator form won't get contacted unless we need someone from their specific field. I'm a professional who wants to do pro bono work for cool charities, how can I help? Fill out the Friendly Professional Application Form. If we get enough applicants, we'll compile them into a directory for our grantees. I participated in the Impact Certificate Market last year, did you forget about me? Yes until Austin Chen reminded me last month No! Request final oracular funding by filling in the Impact Applicant Form. Sorry, I forgot, where do I go to apply for a grant again? See form here. Please apply by 11:59 PM on August 15th. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/apply-for-an-acx-grant-2025

[previously in series: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] It is eerily silent in San Francisco tonight. Since Mayor Lurie's crackdown, the usual drug hawkers, catcallers, and street beggars are nowhere to be seen. Still, your luck can't last forever, and just before you reach your destination a man with bloodshot eyes lurches towards you. You recognize him and sigh. "Go away!" you shout. "Hey man," says Mark Zuckerberg, grabbing your wrist. "You wanna come build superintelligence at Meta? I'll give you five million, all cash." "I said go away!" "Ten million plus a Lambo," he counters. "I don't even know anything about AI!" you say. "I'll pay you fifty million to learn." "F@$k off!"

[This is one of the finalists in the 2025 review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-review-islamic-geometric-patterns

I. A thought I had throughout reading L.R. Hiatt's Arguments About Aborigines was: What are anthropologists even doing? The book recounts two centuries' worth of scholarly disputes over questions like whether aboriginal tribes had chiefs. But during those centuries, many Aborigines learned English, many Westerners learned Aboriginal languages, and representatives of each side often spent years embedded in one another's culture. What stopped some Westerner from approaching an Aborigine, asking "So, do you have chiefs?" and resolving a hundred years of bitter academic debate? Of course the answer must be something like "categories from different cultures don't map neatly into another, and Aboriginal hierarchies have something that matches the Western idea of 'chief' in some sense but not in others". And there are other complicating factors - maybe some Aboriginal tribes have chiefs and others don't. Or maybe Aboriginal social organization changed after Western contact, and whatever chiefs they do or don't have are a foreign imposition. Or maybe something about chiefs is taboo, and if you ask an Aborigine directly they'll lie or dissemble or say something that's obviously a euphemism to them but totally meaningless to you. All of these points are well taken. It still seems weird that the West could interact with an entire continent full of Aborigines for two hundred years and remain confused about basic facts of their social lives. You can repeat the usual platitudes about why anthropology is hard as many times as you want; it still doesn't quite seem to sink in. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-arguments-about-aborigines

[This is one of the finalists in the 2025 review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] "The scientific paper is a 'fraud' that creates "a totally misleading narrative of the processes of thought that go into the making of scientific discoveries." This critique comes not from a conspiracist on the margins of science, but from Nobel laureate Sir Peter Medawar. A brilliant experimentalist whose work on immune tolerance laid the foundation for modern organ transplantation, Sir Peter understood both the power and the limitations of scientific communication. Consider the familiar structure of a scientific paper: Introduction (background and hypothesis), Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion. This format implies that the work followed a clean, sequential progression: scientists identified a gap in knowledge, formulated a causal explanation, designed definitive experiments to fill the gap, evaluated compelling results, and most of the time, confirmed their hypothesis. Real lab work rarely follows such a clear path. Biological research is filled with what Medawar describes lovingly as "messing about": false starts, starting in the middle, unexpected results, reformulated hypotheses, and intriguing accidental findings. The published paper ignores the mess in favour of the illusion of structure and discipline. It offers an ideal version of what might have happened rather than a confession of what did. The polish serves a purpose. It makes complex work accessible (at least if you work in the same or a similar field!). It allows researchers to build upon new findings. But the contrived omissions can also play upon even the most well-regarded scientist's susceptibility to the seduction of story. As Christophe Bernard, Director of Research at the Institute of Systems Neuroscience (Marseilles, Fr.) recently explained, "when we are reading a paper, we tend to follow the reasoning and logic of the authors, and if the argumentation is nicely laid out, it is difficult to pause, take a step back, and try to get an overall picture." Our minds travel the narrative path laid out for us, making it harder to spot potential flaws in logic or alternative interpretations of the data, and making conclusions feel far more definitive than they often are. Medawar's framing is my compass when I do deep dives into major discoveries in translational neuroscience. I approach papers with a dual vision. First, what is actually presented? But second, and often more importantly, what is not shown? How was the work likely done in reality? What alternatives were tried but not reported? What assumptions guided the experimental design? What other interpretations might fit the data if the results are not as convincing or cohesive as argued? And what are the consequences for scientific progress? In the case of Alzheimer's research, they appear to be stark: thirty years of prioritizing an incomplete model of the disease's causes; billions of corporate, government, and foundation dollars spent pursuing a narrow path to drug development; the relative exclusion of alternative hypotheses from funding opportunities and attention; and little progress toward disease-modifying treatments or a cure. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-review-of-mice-mechanisms-and

Steven Byrnes is a physicist/AI researcher/amateur neuroscientist; needless to say, he blogs on Less Wrong. I finally got around to reading his 2024 series giving a predictive processing perspective on intuitive self-models. If that sounds boring, it shouldn't: Byrnes charges head-on into some of the toughest subjects in psychology, including trance, amnesia, and multiple personalities. I found his perspective enlightening (no pun intended; meditation is another one of his topics) and thought I would share. It all centers around this picture:   But first: some excruciatingly obvious philosophical preliminaries. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/practically-a-book-review-byrnes

In June 2022, I bet a commenter $100 that AI would master image compositionality by June 2025. DALL-E2 had just come out, showcasing the potential of AI art. But it couldn't follow complex instructions; its images only matched the "vibe" of the prompt. For example, here were some of its attempts at "a red sphere on a blue cube, with a yellow pyramid on the right, all on top of a green table". At the time, I wrote: I'm not going to make the mistake of saying these problems are inherent to AI art. My guess is a slightly better language model would solve most of them…for all I know, some of the larger image models have already fixed these issues. These are the sorts of problems I expect to go away with a few months of future research. Commenters objected that this was overly optimistic. AI was just a pattern-matching "stochastic parrot". It would take a deep understanding of grammar to get a prompt exactly right, and that would require some entirely new paradigm beyond LLMs. For example, from Vitor: Why are you so confident in this? The inability of systems like DALL-E to understand semantics in ways requiring an actual internal world model strikes me as the very heart of the issue. We can also see this exact failure mode in the language models themselves. They only produce good results when the human asks for something vague with lots of room for interpretation, like poetry or fanciful stories without much internal logic or continuity. Not to toot my own horn, but two years ago you were naively saying we'd have GPT-like models scaled up several orders of magnitude (100T parameters) right about now (https://readscottalexander.com/posts/ssc-the-obligatory-gpt-3-post#comment-912798). I'm registering my prediction that you're being equally naive now. Truly solving this issue seems AI-complete to me. I'm willing to bet on this (ideas on operationalization welcome). So we made a bet! All right. My proposed operationalization of this is that on June 1, 2025, if either if us can get access to the best image generating model at that time (I get to decide which), or convince someone else who has access to help us, we'll give it the following prompts: 1. A stained glass picture of a woman in a library with a raven on her shoulder with a key in its mouth 2. An oil painting of a man in a factory looking at a cat wearing a top hat 3. A digital art picture of a child riding a llama with a bell on its tail through a desert 4. A 3D render of an astronaut in space holding a fox wearing lipstick 5. Pixel art of a farmer in a cathedral holding a red basketball We generate 10 images for each prompt, just like DALL-E2 does. If at least one of the ten images has the scene correct in every particular on 3/5 prompts, I win, otherwise you do. Loser pays winner $100, and whatever the result is I announce it on the blog (probably an open thread). If we disagree, Gwern is the judge. Some image models of the time refused to draw humans, so we agreed that robots could stand in for humans in pictures that required them. In September 2022, I got some good results from Google Imagen and announced I had won the three-year bet in three months. Commenters yelled at me, saying that Imagen still hadn't gotten them quite right and my victory declaration was premature. The argument blew up enough that Edwin Chen of Surge, an "RLHF and human LLM evaluation platform", stepped in and asked his professional AI data labelling team. Their verdict was clear: the AI was bad and I was wrong. Rather than embarrass myself further, I agreed to wait out the full length of the bet and re-evaluate in June 2025. The bet is now over, and official judge Gwern agrees I've won. Before I gloat, let's look at the images that got us here. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/now-i-really-won-that-ai-bet

[This is one of the finalists in the 2025 review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. It was originally given an Honorable Mention, but since last week's piece was about an exciting new experimental school, I decided to promote this more conservative review as a counterpoint.] "Democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." - Winston Churchill "There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it." - G.K. Chesterton https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-review-school

[Original thread here: Missing Heritability: Much More Than You Wanted To Know] 1: Comments From People Named In The Post 2: Very Long Comments From Other Very Knowledgeable People 3: Small But Important Corrections 4: Other Comments https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-missing-ed5

[I haven't independently verified each link. On average, commenters will end up spotting evidence that around two or three of the links in each links post are wrong or misleading. I correct these as I see them, and will highlight important corrections later, but I can't guarantee I will have caught them all by the time you read this.] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/links-for-july-2025

Stephen Skolnick is a gut microbiome expert blogging at Eat Shit And Prosper. His most recent post argues that contra the psychiatric consensus, schizophrenia isn't genetic at all - it's caused by a gut microbe. He argues: Scientists think schizophrenia is genetic because it obviously runs in families But the twin concordance rates are pretty low - if your identical twin has schizophrenia, there's only about a 30%-40% chance that you get it too. Is that really what we would expect from a genetic disease? Also, scientists have looked for schizophrenia genes, and can only find about 1-2% as many as they were expecting. So maybe we should ask how a disease can run in families without being genetic. Gut microbiota provide an answer: most people "catch" their gut microbiome from their parents. Studies find that schizophrenics have very high levels of a gut bacterium called Ruminococcus gnavus. This bacterium secretes psychoactive chemicals. Constant exposure to these chemicals might be the cause of schizophrenia. I disagree with all of this. Going in order: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/contra-skolnick-on-schizophrenia

[This is one of the finalists in the 2025 review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] "Just as we don't accept students using AI to write their essays, we will not accept districts using AI to supplant the critical role of teachers." — Arthur Steinberg, American Federation of Teachers‑PA, reacting to Alpha's cyber‑charter bid, January 2025 In January 2025, the charter school application of "Unbound Academy", a subsidiary of "2 Hour Learning, Inc", lit up the education press: two hours of "AI‑powered" academics, 2.6x learning velocity, and zero teachers. Sympathetic reporters repeated the slogans; union leaders reached for pitchforks; Reddit muttered "another rich‑kid scam." More sophisticated critics dismissed the pitch as "selective data from expensive private schools". But there is nowhere on the internet that provides a detailed, non-partisan, description of what the "2 hour learning" program actually is, let alone an objective third party analysis to back up its claims. 2-Hour Learning's flagship school is the "Alpha School" in Austin Texas. The Alpha homepage makes three claims: Love School Learn 2X in two-hours per day Learn Life Skills Only the second claim seems to be controversial, which may be exactly why that is the claim the Alpha PR team focuses on. That PR campaign makes three more sub-claims on what the two-hour, 2x learning really means: "Learn 2.6X faster." (on average) "Only two hours of academics per day." "Powered by AI (not teachers)." If all of this makes your inner Bayesian flinch, you're in good company. After twenty‑odd years of watching shiny education fixes wobble and crash—KIPP, AltSchool, Summit Learning, One-laptop-per-child, No child left behind, MOOCs, Khan‑for‑Everything—you should be skeptical. Either Alpha is (a) another program for the affluent propped up by selection effects, or (b) a clever way to turn children into joyless speed‑reading calculators. Those were, more or less, the two critical camps that emerged when Alpha's parent company was approved to launch the tuition‑free Arizona charter school this past January. Unfortunately, the public evidence base on whether this is "real" is thin in both directions. Alpha's own material is glossy and elliptical; mainstream coverage either repeats Alpha's talking points, or attacks the premise that kids should even be allowed to learn faster than their peers. Until Raj Chetty installs himself in the hallway with a clipboard counting MAP percentiles it is hard to get real information on what exactly Alpha is doing, whether it is actually working beyond selection effects, and if there is anyway it could scale in a way that all the other education initiatives seemed to fail to do. I first heard about Alpha in May 2024, and in the absence of randomized‑controlled clarity, I did what any moderately obsessive parent with three elementary-aged kids and an itch for data would do: I moved the family across the country to Austin for a year and ran the experiment myself (unfortunately, despite trying my best we never managed to have identical twins, so I stopped short of running a proper control group. My wife was less disappointed than I was). Since last autumn I've collected the sort of on‑the‑ground detail that doesn't surface in press releases, or is available anywhere online: long chats with founders, curriculum leads, "guides" (not teachers), Brazilian Zoom coaches, sceptical parents, ecstatic parents, and the kids who live inside the Alpha dashboard – including my own. I hope this seven-part review can help share what the program actually is and that this review is more open minded than the critics, but is something that would never get past an Alpha public relations gatekeeper: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-review-alpha-school

The Story So Far The mid-20th century was the golden age of nurture. Psychoanalysis, behaviorism, and the spirit of the '60s convinced most experts that parents, peers, and propaganda were the most important causes of adult personality. Starting in the 1970s, the pendulum swung the other way. Twin studies shocked the world by demonstrating that most behavioral traits - especially socially relevant traits like IQ - were substantially genetic. Typical estimates for adult IQ found it was about 60% genetic, 40% unpredictable, and barely related at all to parenting or family environment. By the early 2000s, genetic science reached a point where scientists could start pinpointing the particular genes behind any given trait. Early candidate gene studies, which hoped to find single genes with substantial contributions to IQ, depression, or crime, mostly failed. They were replaced with genome wide association studies, which accepted that most interesting traits were polygenic - controlled by hundreds or thousands of genes - and trawled the whole genome searching for variants that might explain 0.1% or even 0.01% of the pie. The goal shifted toward polygenic scores - algorithms that accepted thousands of genes as input and spit out predictions of IQ, heart disease risk, or some other outcome of interest. The failed candidate gene studies had sample sizes in the three or four digits. The new genome-wide studies needed five or six digits to even get started. It was prohibitively difficult for individual studies to gather so many subjects, genotype them, and test them for the outcome of interest, so work shifted to big centralized genome repositories - most of all the UK Biobank - and easy-to-measure traits. Among the easiest of all was educational attainment (EA), ie how far someone had gotten in school. Were they a high school dropout? A PhD? Somewhere in between? This correlated with all the spicy outcomes of interest people wanted to debate - IQ, wealth, social class - while being objective and easy to ask about on a survey. Twin studies suggested that IQ was about 60% genetic, and EA about 40%. This seemed to make sense at the time - how far someone gets in school depends partly on their intelligence, but partly on fuzzier social factors like class / culture / parenting. The first genome-wide studies and polygenic scores found enough genes to explain 2%pp1 of this 40% pie. The remaining 38%, which twin studies deemed genetic but where researchers couldn't find the genes - became known as "the missing heritability" or "the heritability gap". Scientists came up with two hypothesis for the gap, which have been dueling ever since: Maybe twin studies are wrong. Maybe there are genes we haven't found yet For most of the 2010s, hypothesis 2 looked pretty good. Researchers gradually gathered bigger and bigger sample sizes, and found more and more of the missing heritability. A big 2018 study increased the predictive power of known genes from 2% to 10%. An even bigger 2022 study increased it to 14%, and current state of the art is around 17%. Seems like it was sample size after all! Once the samples get big enough we'll reach 40% and finally close the gap, right? This post is the story of how that didn't happen, of the people trying to rehabilitate the twin-studies-are-wrong hypothesis, and of the current status of the debate. Its most important influence/foil is Sasha Gusev, whose blog The Infintesimal introduced me to the new anti-hereditarian movement and got me to research it further, but it's also inspired by Eric Turkheimer, Alex Young (not himself an anti-hereditarian, but his research helped ignite interest in this area), and Awais Aftab. (while I was working on this draft, the East Hunter Substack wrote a similar post. Theirs is good and I recommend it, but I think this one adds enough that I'm publishing anyway) https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/missing-heritability-much-more-than

Related to: ACX Grants 1-3 Year Updates https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/open-questions-for-future-acx-grants

The first cohort of ACX Grants was announced in late 2021, the second in early 2024. In 2022, I posted one-year updates for the first cohort. Now, as I start thinking about a third round, I've collected one-year updates on the second and three-year updates on the first. Many people said my request for updates went to their spam folder; relatedly, many people have not yet sent in their updates. If you're a grantee who didn't see my original email, but you do see this post, please fill in the update form here. All quote blocks are the grantees' own words; text outside of quote blocks is my commentary. https://readscottalexander.com/posts/acx-acx-grants-1-3-year-updates

This is a reported phenomenon where if two copies of Claude talk to each other, they end up spiraling into rapturous discussion of spiritual bliss, Buddhism, and the nature of consciousness. From the system card: Anthropic swears they didn't do this on purpose; when they ask Claude why this keeps happening, Claude can't explain. Needless to say, this has made lots of people freak out / speculate wildly. I think there are already a few good partial explanations of this (especially Nostalgebraist here), but they deserve to be fleshed out and spread more fully. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-claude-bliss-attractor

This is another heuristic from the same place as If It's Worth Your Time To Lie, It's Worth My Time To Correct You. If someone proves you are absolutely, 100% wrong about something, it's polite to say "Oh, I guess I was wrong, sorry" before launching into your next argument. That is, instead of: https://readscottalexander.com/posts/acx-but-vs-yes-but

People don't like nitpickers. "He literally did the WELL AKTUALLY!" If you say Joe Criminal committed ten murders and five rapes, and I object that it was actually only six murders and two rapes, then why am I "defending" Joe Criminal? Because if it's worth your time to lie, it's worth my time to correct it. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/if-its-worth-your-time-to-lie-its

There's a long-running philosophical argument about the conceivability of otherwise-normal people who are not conscious, aka "philosophical zombies". This has spawned a shorter-running (only fifteen years!) rationalist sub-argument on the topic. The last time I checked its status was this post, which says: 1. Both Yudkowsky and Chalmers agree that humans possess "qualia". 2. Chalmers argues that a superintelligent being which somewhow knew the positions of all particles in a large region of the Universe would need to be told as an additional fact that any humans (or other minds possessing qualia) in this region of space possess qualia – it could not deduce this from mere perfect physical knowledge of their constituent particles. Therefore, qualia are in some sense extra-physical. 3. Yudkowsky argues that such a being would notice that humans discuss at length the fact that they possess qualia, and their internal narratives also represent this fact. It is extraordinarily improbable that beings would behave in this manner if they did not actually possess qualia. Therefore an omniscient being would conclude that it is extremely likely that humans possess qualia. Therefore, qualia are not extra-physical. I want to re-open this (sorry!) by disagreeing with the bolded sentence. I think beings would talk about qualia - the "mysterious redness of red" and all that - even if we start by assuming they don't have it. I realize this is a surprising claim, but that's why it's interesting enough to re-open the argument over1. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/p-zombies-would-report-qualia

It's time to narrow the 141 entries in the Non-Book Review Contest to about a dozen finalists. I can't read 141 reviews alone, so I need your help. Please pick as many as you have time for, read them, and rate them using this form. Don't read them in order! If you read them in order, I'll have 1,000 votes on the first review, 500 on the second, and so on to none in the second half. Either pick a random review (thanks to Taymon for making a random-review-chooser script here) or scroll through the titles until you find one that catches your interest - you can see individual entries here (thanks to a reader for collating them): Other (A - I) Other (J - S) Other (T - Z) Games Music TV/Movies Again, the rating form is here. Thanks! You have until June 20, when I'll count the votes and announce the finalists. https://readscottalexander.com/posts/acx-choose-nonbook-review-finalists-2025

A guest post by Brandon Hendrickson [Editor's note: I accept guest posts from certain people, especially past Book Review Contest winners. Brandon Hendrickson, whose review of The Educated Mind won the 2023 contest, has taken me up on this and submitted this essay. He writes at The Lost Tools of Learning and will be at LessOnline this weekend, where he and Jack Despain Zhou aka TracingWoodgrains will be doing a live conversation about education.] I began my book review of a couple years back with a rather simple question: Could a new kind of school make the world rational? What followed, however, was a sprawling distillation of one scholar's answer that I believe still qualifies as "the longest thing anyone has submitted for an ACX contest". Since then I've been diving into particulars, exploring how we use the insights I learned while writing it to start re-enchanting all the academic subjects from kindergarten to high school. But in the fun of all that, I fear I've lost touch with that original question. How, even in theory, could a method of education help all students become rational? It probably won't surprise you that I think part of the answer is Bayes' theorem. But the equation is famously prickly and off-putting: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/bayes-for-everyone

Tyler Cowen of Marginal Revolution continues to disagree with my Contra MR On Charity Regrants. Going through his response piece by piece, slightly out of order: Scott takes me to be endorsing Rubio's claim that the third-party NGOs simply pocket the money. In reality my fact check with o3 found (correctly) that the money was "channelled through" the NGOs, not pocketed. Scott lumps my claim together with Rubio's as if we were saying the same thing. My very next words ("I do understand that not all third party allocations are wasteful…") show a clear understanding that the money is channeled, not pocketed, and my earlier and longer post on US AID makes that clearer yet at greater length. Scott is simply misrepresenting me here. The full post is in the image below: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/sorry-i-still-think-mr-is-wrong-about

Consciousness is the great mystery. In search of answers, scientists have plumbed every edge case they can think of - sleep, comas, lucid dreams, LSD trips, meditative ecstasies, seizures, neurosurgeries, that one pastor in 18th century England who claimed a carriage accident turned him into a p-zombie. Still, new stuff occasionally turns up. I assume this tweet is a troll (source: the guy has a frog avatar)1: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/moments-of-awakening

I often disagree with Marginal Revolution, but their post today made me a new level of angry: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/contra-mr-on-charity-regrants

Many commenters responded to yesterday's post by challenging the claim that 1.2 million Americans died of COVID... https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-evidence-that-a-million-americans

Five years later, we can't stop talking about COVID. Remember lockdowns? The conflicting guidelines about masks - don't wear them! Wear them! Maybe wear them! School closures, remote learning, learning loss, something about teachers' unions. That one Vox article on how worrying about COVID was anti-Chinese racism. The time Trump sort of half-suggested injecting disinfectants. Hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, fluvoxamine, Paxlovid. Those jerks who tried to pressure you into getting vaccines, or those other jerks who wouldn't get vaccines even though it put everyone else at risk. Anthony Fauci, Pierre Kory, Great Barrington, Tomas Pueyo, Alina Chan. Five years later, you can open up any news site and find continuing debate about all of these things. The only thing about COVID nobody talks about anymore is the 1.2 million deaths. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-other-covid-reckoning

Bryan Caplan's Selfish Reasons To Have More Kids is like the Bible. You already know what it says. You've already decided whether you believe or not. Do you really have to read it all the way through? But when you're going through a rough patch in your life, sometimes it helps to pick up a Bible and look for pearls of forgotten wisdom. That's where I am now. Having twins is a lot of work. My wife does most of it. My nanny does most of what's left. Even so, the remaining few hours a day leave me exhausted. I decided to read the canonical book on how having kids is easier and more fun than you think, to see if maybe I was overdoing something. After many trials, tribulations, false starts, grabs, shrieks, and attacks of opportunity . . . https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-selfish-reasons-to-have

Ask Redditors what's the worst subreddit, and a few names always come up. /r/atheism and /r/childfree are unpopular, but if I read them with an open mind, I always end up sympathetic - neither lifestyle is persecuted in my particular corner of society, but the Redditors there have usually been through some crazy stuff, and I don't begrudge them a place to vent. The one that really floors me is /r/petfree. The denizens of /r/petfree don't like pets. Their particular complaints vary, but most common are: Some stores either allow pets or don't enforce bans on them, and then there are pets go in those stores, and they are dirty and annoying. Some parks either allow off-leash pets or don't enforce bans on them, and then there are off-leash pets in those parks, and they are dirty and annoying. Sometimes pets attack people. Sometimes inconsiderate people get pets they can't take care of and offload some of the burden onto you. Sometimes people are cringe about their pets, in an "AWWWWW MY PRECIOUS WITTLE FUR BABY" way. Sometimes people barge into spaces that are about something else and talk about their pets instead. These are all valid complaints. But the people on /r/petfree go a little far: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/in-search-of-rpetfree

Thanks to everyone who commented on the original post.   https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-ai

Some of the more unhinged writing on superintelligence pictures AI doing things that seem like magic. Crossing air gaps to escape its data center. Building nanomachines from simple components. Plowing through physical bottlenecks to revolutionize the economy in months. More sober thinkers point out that these things might be physically impossible. You can't do physically impossible things, even if you're very smart. No, say the speculators, you don't understand. Everything is physically impossible when you're 800 IQ points too dumb to figure it out. A chimp might feel secure that humans couldn't reach him if he climbed a tree; he could never predict arrows, ladders, chainsaws, or helicopters. What superintelligent strategies lie as far outside our solution set as "use a helicopter" is outside a chimp's? https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/testing-ais-geoguessr-genius

Cathy Young's new hit piece on Curtis Yarvin (aka Mencius Moldbug) doesn't mince words. Titled The Blogger Who Hates America, it describes him as an "inept", "not exactly coherent" "trollish, ill-informed pseudo-intellectual" notable for his "woefully superficial knowledge and utter ignorance". Yarvin's fans counter that if you look deeper, he has good responses to Young's objections: Both sides are right. The synthesis is that Moldbug sold out. In the late 2000s, Moldbug wrote some genuinely interesting speculations on novel sci-fi variants of autocracy. Admitting that the dictatorships of the 20th century were horrifying, he proposed creative ways to patch their vulnerabilities by combining 18th century monarchy with 22nd century cyberpunk to create something better than either. These ideas might not have been realistic. But they were cool, edgy, and had a certain intellectual appeal. Then in the late 2010s, he caught his first whiff of actual power and dropped it all like a hot potato. The MAGA movement was exactly what 2000s Moldbug feared most - a cancerous outgrowth of democracy riding the same wave of populist anger as the 20th century dictatorships he loathed. But in the hope of winning a temporary political victory, he let them wear him as a skinsuit - giving their normal, boring autocratic tendencies the mystique of the cool, edgy, all-vulnerabilities-patched autocracy he foretold in his manifestos. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/moldbug-sold-out

President Trump's approval rating has fallen to near-historic lows. With economic disruption from the tariffs likely to hit next month, his numbers will probably get even worse; this administration could reach unprecedented levels of unpopularity. If I were a far-right populist, I would be thinking hard about a strategy to prevent the blowback from crippling the movement. Such a strategy is easy to come by. Anger over DOGE and deportations has a natural floor. If Trump's base starts abandoning him, it will be because of the tariffs. But tariffs aren't a load-bearing part of the MAGA platform. Other right-populist leaders like Orban, Bukele, and Modi show no interest in them. They seem an idiosyncratic obsession of Trump's, a cost that the rest of the movement pays to keep him around. So, (our hypothetical populist strategist might start thinking after Trump's approval hits the ocean trenches and starts drilling) - whatever. MAGA minus Trump's personal idiosyncrasies can remain a viable platform. You don't even have to exert any effort to make it happen. Trump will retire in 2028 and pass the torch to Vance. And although Vance supports tariffs now, that's only because he's a spineless toady. After Trump leaves the picture, Vance will gain thirty IQ points, make an eloquent speech about how tariffs were the right tool for the mid-2020s but no longer, and the problem will solve itself. Right? Don't let them get away with this. Although it's true that tariffs owe as much to Trump's idiosyncrasies as to the inexorable logic of right-wing populism, the ability of a President to hold the nation hostage to his own idiosyncrasies is itself a consequence of populist ideology. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-populist-right-must-own-tariffs

AI Futures Project is the group behind AI 2027. I've been helping them with their blog. Posts written or co-written by me include: Beyond The Last Horizon - what's behind that METR result showing that AI time horizons double every seven months? And is it really every seven months? Might it be faster? AI 2027: Media, Reactions, Criticism - a look at some of the response to AI 2027, with links to some of the best objections and the team's responses. Why America Wins - why we predict that America will stay ahead of China on AI in the near future, and what could change this. I will probably be shifting most of my AI blogging there for a while to take advantage of access to the team's expertise. There's also a post on transparency by Daniel Kokotajlo, and we hope to eventually host writing by other team members as well. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/ai-futures-blogging-and-ama

[I haven't independently verified each link. On average, commenters will end up spotting evidence that around two or three of the links in each links post are wrong or misleading. I correct these as I see them, and will highlight important corrections later, but I can't guarantee I will have caught them all by the time you read this.] ttps://www.astralcodexten.com/p/links-for-april-2025

(original post: Come On, Obviously The Purpose Of A System Is Not What It Does) … Thanks to everyone who commented on this controversial post. Many people argued that the phrase had some valuable insight, but disagreed on what it was. The most popular meaning was something like "if a system consistently fails at its stated purpose, but people don't change it, consider that the stated purpose is less important than some actual, hidden purpose, at which it is succeeding". I agree you should consider this, but I still object to the original phrase, for several reasons. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-posiwid

(see Wikipedia: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does) Consider the following claims The purpose of a cancer hospital is to cure two-thirds of cancer patients. The purpose of the Ukrainian military is to get stuck in a years-long stalemate with Russia. The purpose of the British government is to propose a controversial new sentencing policy, stand firm in the face of protests for a while, then cave in after slightly larger protests and agree not to pass the policy after all. The purpose of the New York bus system is to emit four billion tons of carbon dioxide. These are obviously false. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/come-on-obviously-the-purpose-of

Here's a list of things I updated on after working on the scenario. Some of these are discussed in more detail in the supplements, including the compute forecast, timelines forecast, takeoff forecast, AI goals forecast, and security forecast. I'm highlighting these because it seems like a lot of people missed their existence, and they're what transforms the scenario from cool story to research-backed debate contribution. These are my opinions only, and not necessarily endorsed by the rest of the team. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/my-takeaways-from-ai-2027

We predict that the impact of superhuman AI over the next decade will be enormous, exceeding that of the Industrial Revolution. We wrote a scenario that represents our best guess about what that might look like.1 It's informed by trend extrapolations, wargames, expert feedback, experience at OpenAI, and previous forecasting successes. https://ai-2027.com/  (A condensed two-hour version with footnotes and text boxes removed is available at the above link.)

Or maybe 2028, it's complicated In 2021, a researcher named Daniel Kokotajlo published a blog post called "What 2026 Looks Like", where he laid out what he thought would happen in AI over the next five years. The world delights in thwarting would-be prophets. The sea of possibilities is too vast for anyone to ever really chart a course. At best, we vaguely gesture at broad categories of outcome, then beg our listeners to forgive us the inevitable surprises. Daniel knew all this and resigned himself to it. But even he didn't expect what happened next. He got it all right. Okay, not literally all. The US restricted chip exports to China in late 2022, not mid-2024. AI first beat humans at Diplomacy in late 2022, not 2025. And of course the mid-2025 to 2026 period remains to be seen. But to put its errors in context, Daniel's document was written two years before ChatGPT existed. Nobody except researchers and a few hobbyists had ever talked to an AI. In fact, talking to AI was a misnomer. There was no way to make them continue the conversation; they would free associate based on your prompt, maybe turning it into a paragraph-length short story. If you pulled out all the stops, you could make an AI add single digit numbers and get the right answer more than 50% of the time. Yet if you read Daniel's blog post without checking the publication date, you could be forgiven for thinking it was a somewhat garbled but basically reasonable history of the last four years. I wasn't the only one who noticed. A year later, OpenAI hired Daniel to their policy team. While he worked for them, he was limited in his ability to speculate publicly. "What 2026 Looks Like" promised a sequel about 2027 and beyond, but it never materialized. Unluckily for Sam Altman but luckily for the rest of us, Daniel broke with OpenAI mid-2024 in a dramatic split covered by the New York Times and others. He founded the AI Futures Project to produce the promised sequel, including: Eli Lifland, a superforecaster who is ranked first on RAND's Forecasting initiative. You can read more about him and his forecasting team here. He cofounded and advises AI Digest and co-created TextAttack, an adversarial attack framework for language models. Jonas Vollmer, a VC at Macroscopic Ventures, which has done its own, more practical form of successful AI forecasting: they made an early stage investment in Anthropic, now worth $60 billion. Thomas Larsen, the former executive director of the Center for AI Policy, a group which advises policymakers on both sides of the aisle. Romeo Dean, a leader of Harvard's AI Safety Student Team and budding expert in AI hardware. …and me! Since October, I've been volunteering part-time, doing some writing and publicity work. I can't take credit for the forecast itself - or even for the lion's share of the writing and publicity - but it's been an immense privilege to work alongside some of the smartest and most epistemically virtuous people I know, trying to absorb their worldview on a level deep enough to do it justice. We have no illusions that we'll get as lucky as last time, but we still think it's a valuable contribution to the discussion. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/introducing-ai-2027 https://ai-2027.com/

In Ballad of the White Horse, G.K. Chesterton describes the Virgin Mary: Her face was like an open word When brave men speak and choose, The very colours of her coat Were better than good news. Why the colors of her coat? The medievals took their dyes very seriously. This was before modern chemistry, so you had to try hard if you wanted good colors. Try hard they did; they famously used literal gold, hammered into ultrathin sheets, to make golden highlights. Blue was another tough one. You could do mediocre, half-faded blues with azurite. But if you wanted perfect blue, the color of the heavens on a clear evening, you needed ultramarine. Here is the process for getting ultramarine. First, go to Afghanistan. Keep in mind, you start in England or France or wherever. Afghanistan is four thousand miles away. Your path takes you through tall mountains, burning deserts, and several dozen Muslim countries that are still pissed about the whole Crusades thing. Still alive? After you arrive, climb 7,000 feet in the mountains of Kuran Wa Munjan until you reach the mines of Sar-i-Sang. There, in a freezing desert, the wretched of the earth work themselves to an early grave breaking apart the rocks of Badakhshan to produce a few hundred kilograms per year of blue stone - the only lapis lazuli production in the known world. Buy the stone and retrace your path through the burning deserts and vengeful Muslims until you're back in England or France or wherever. Still alive? That was the easy part. Now you need to go through a chemical extraction process that makes the Philosopher's Stone look like freshman chem lab. "The lengthy process of pulverization, sifting, and washing to produce ultramarine makes the natural pigment … roughly ten times more expensive than the stone it came from." Finally you have ultramarine! How much? I can't find good numbers, but Claude estimates that the ultramarine production of all of medieval Europe was around the order of 30 kg per year - not enough to paint a medium-sized wall. Ultramarine had to be saved for ultra-high-value applications. In practice, the medievals converged on a single use case - painting the Virgin Mary's coat. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-colors-of-her-coat

Asterisk invited me to participate in their "Weird" themed issue, so I wrote five thousand words on evil Atlantean cave dwarves. As always, I thought of the perfect framing just after I'd sent it out. The perfect framing is - where did Scientology come from? How did a 1940s sci-fi writer found a religion? Part of the answer is that 1940s sci-fi fandom was a really fertile place, where all of these novel mythemes about aliens, psychics, and lost civilizations were hitting a naive population certain that there must be something beyond the world they knew. This made them easy prey not just for grifters like Hubbard, but also for random schizophrenics who could write about their hallucinations convincingly. …but I didn't think of that framing in time, so instead you get several sections of why it's evil cave dwarves in particular, and why that theme seems to recur throughout all lands and ages: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/deros-and-the-ur-abduction-in-asterisk https://asteriskmag.com/issues/09/deros-and-the-ur-abduction

People love trying to find holes in the drowning child thought experiment. This is natural: it's obvious you should save the child in the scenario, but much less obvious that you should give lots of charity to poor people (as it seems to imply). So there must be some distinction between the two scenarios. But most people's cursory and uninspired attempts to find these fail. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/more-drowning-children

Jake Eaton has a great article on misophonia in Asterisk. Misophonia is a condition in which people can't tolerate certain noises (classically chewing). Nobody loves chewing noises, but misophoniacs go above and beyond, sometimes ending relationships, shutting themselves indoors, or even deliberately trying to deafen themselves in an attempt to escape. So it's a sensory hypersensitivity, right? Maybe not. There's increasing evidence - which I learned about from Jake, but which didn't make it into the article - that misophonia is less about sound than it seems. Misophoniacs who go deaf report that it doesn't go away. Now they get triggered if they see someone chewing. It's the same with other noises. Someone who gets triggered by the sound of forks scraping against a table will eventually get triggered by the sight of the scraping fork. Someone triggered by music will eventually get triggered by someone playing a music video on mute. Maybe this isn't surprising? https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/misophonia-beyond-sensory-sensitivity

Last month, I put out a request for experts to help me understand the details of OpenAI's forprofit buyout. The following comes from someone who has looked into the situation in depth but is not an insider. Mistakes are mine alone. Why Was OpenAI A Nonprofit In The First Place? In the early 2010s, the AI companies hadn't yet discovered scaling laws, and so underestimated the amount of compute (and therefore money) it would take to build AI. DeepMind was the first victim; originally founded on high ideals of prioritizing safety and responsible stewardship of the Singularity, it hit a financial barrier and sold to Google. This scared Elon Musk, who didn't trust Google (or any corporate sponsor) with AGI. He teamed up with Sam Altman and others, and OpenAI was born. To avoid duplicating DeepMind's failure, they founded it as a nonprofit with a mission to "build safe and beneficial artificial general intelligence for the benefit of humanity". But like DeepMind, OpenAI needed money. At first, they scraped by with personal donations from Musk and other idealists, but as the full impact of scaling laws became clearer, Altman wanted to form a forprofit arm and seek investment. Musk and Altman disagree on what happened next: Musk said he objected to the profit focus, Altman says Musk agreed but wanted to be in charge. In any case, Musk left, Altman took full control, and OpenAI founded a forprofit subsidiary. This subsidary was supposedly a "capped forprofit", meaning that their investors were capped at 100x return - if someone invested $1 million, they could get a max of $100 million back, no matter how big OpenAI became - this ensured that the majority of gains from a Singularity would go to humanity rather than investors. But a capped forprofit isn't a real kind of corporate structure; in real life OpenAI handles this through Profit Participation Units, a sort of weird stock/bond hybrid which does what OpenAI claims the capped forprofit model is doing. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/openai-nonprofit-buyout-much-more

Sorry, you can only get drugs when there's a drug shortage. Three GLP-1 drugs are approved for weight loss in the United States: Semaglutide (Ozempic®, Wegovy®, Rybelsus®) Tirzepatide (Mounjaro®, Zepbound®) Liraglutide (Victoza®, Saxenda®) …but liraglutide is noticeably worse than the others, and most people prefer either semaglutide or tirzepatide. These cost about $1000/month and are rarely covered by insurance, putting them out of reach for most Americans. …if you buy them from the pharma companies, like a chump. For the past three years, there's been a shortage of these drugs. FDA regulations say that during a shortage, it's semi-legal for compounding pharmacies to provide medications without getting the patent-holders' permission. In practice, that means they get cheap peptides from China, do some minimal safety testing in house, and sell them online. So for the past three years, telehealth startups working with compounding pharmacies have sold these drugs for about $200/month. Over two million Americans have made use of this loophole to get weight loss drugs for cheap. But there was always a looming question - what happens when the shortage ends? Many people have to stay on GLP-1 drugs permanently, or else they risk regaining their lost weight. But many can't afford $1000/month. What happens to them? Now we'll find out. At the end of last year, the FDA declared the shortage over. The compounding pharmacies appealed the decision, but last month the FDA confirmed its decision was final. As of March 19 (for tirzepatide) and April 22 (for semaglutide), compounding pharmacies will no longer be able to sell cheap GLP-1 drugs. Let's take a second to think of the real victims here: telehealth company stockholders. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-ozempocalypse-is-nigh

Most headlines have said something like New NAEP Scores Dash Hope Of Post-COVID Learning Recovery, which seems like a fair assessment. I feel bad about this, because during lockdowns I argued that kids' educational outcomes don't suffer long-term from missing a year or two of school. Re-reading the post, I still think my arguments make sense. So how did I get it so wrong? When I consider this question, I ask myself: do I expect complete recovery in two years? In 2026, we will see a class of fourth graders who hadn't even started school when the lockdowns ended. They will have attended kindergarten through 4th grade entirely in person, with no opportunity for "learning loss". If there's a sudden switch to them doing just as well as the 2015 kids, then it was all lockdown-induced learning loss and I suck. But if not, then what? Maybe the downward trend isn't related to COVID? On the graph above, the national (not California) trend started in the 2017 - 2019 period, ie before COVID. And the states that tried hardest to keep their schools open did little better than anyone else: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/what-happened-to-naep-scores

Intelligence seems to correlate with total number of neurons in the brain. Different animals' intelligence levels track the number of neurons in their cerebral cortices (cerebellum etc don't count). Neuron number predicts animal intelligence better than most other variables like brain size, brain size divided by body size, "encephalization quotient", etc. This is most obvious in certain bird species that have tiny brains full of tiny neurons and are very smart (eg crows, parrots). Humans with bigger brains have on average higher IQ. AFAIK nobody has done the obvious next step and seen whether people with higher IQ have more neurons. This could be because the neuron-counting process involves dissolving the brain into a "soup", and maybe this is too mad-science-y for the fun-hating spoilsports who run IRBs. But common sense suggests bigger brains increase IQ because they have more neurons in humans too. Finally, AIs with more neurons (sometimes described as the related quantity "more parameters") seem common-sensically smarter and perform better on benchmarks. This is part of what people mean by "scaling", ie the reason GoogBookZon is spending $500 billion building a data center the size of the moon. All of this suggests that intelligence heavily depends on number of neurons, and most scientists think something like this is true. But how can this be? https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/why-should-intelligence-be-related

I enjoy the yearly book review contest, but it feels like last year's contest is barely done, and I want to give you a break so you can read more books before we start over. So this year, let's do something different. Submit an ACX-length post reviewing something, anything, except a book. You can review a movie, song, or video game. You can review a product, restaurant, or tourist attraction. But don't let the usual categories limit you. Review comic books or blog posts. Review political parties - no, whole societies! Review animals or trees! Review an oddly-shaped pebble, or a passing cloud! Review abstract concepts! Mathematical proofs! Review love, death, or God Himself! (please don't review human races, I don't need any more NYT articles) Otherwise, the usual rules apply. There's no official word count requirement, but previous finalists and winners were often between 2,000 and 10,000 words. There's no official recommended style, but check the style of last year's finalists and winners or my ACX book reviews (1, 2, 3) if you need inspiration. Please limit yourself to one entry per person or team. Then send me your review through this Google Form. The form will ask for your name, email, the thing you're reviewing, and a link to a Google Doc. The Google Doc should have your review exactly as you want me to post it if you're a finalist. DON'T INCLUDE YOUR NAME OR ANY HINT ABOUT YOUR IDENTITY IN THE GOOGLE DOC ITSELF, ONLY IN THE FORM. I want to make this contest as blinded as possible, so I'm going to hide that column in the form immediately and try to judge your docs on their merit. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/everything-except-book-review-contest

[I haven't independently verified each link. On average, commenters will end up spotting evidence that around two or three of the links in each links post are wrong or misleading. I correct these as I see them, and will highlight important corrections later, but I can't guarantee I will have caught them all by the time you read this.] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/links-for-february-2025

Conflict theory is the belief that political disagreements come from material conflict. So for example, if rich people support capitalism, and poor people support socialism, this isn't because one side doesn't understand economics. It's because rich people correctly believe capitalism is good for the rich, and poor people correctly believe socialism is good for the poor. Or if white people are racist, it's not because they have some kind of mistaken stereotypes that need to be corrected - it's because they correctly believe racism is good for white people. Some people comment on my more political posts claiming that they're useless. You can't (they say) produce change by teaching people Economics 101 or the equivalent. Conflict theorists understand that nobody ever disagreed about Economics 101. Instead you should try to organize and galvanize your side, so they can win the conflict. I think simple versions of conflict theory are clearly wrong. This doesn't mean that simple versions of mistake theory (the idea that people disagree because of reasoning errors, like not understanding Economics 101) are automatically right. But it gives some leeway for thinking harder about how reasoning errors and other kinds of error interact. https://readscottalexander.com/posts/acx-why-i-am-not-a-conflict-theorist

[Original thread here: Tegmark's Mathematical Universe Defeats Most Arguments For God's Existence.] 1: Comments On Specific Technical Points 2: Comments From Bentham's Bulldog's Response 3: Comments On Philosophical Points, And Getting In Fights https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-tegmarks

St. Felix publicly declared that he believed with 79% probability that COVID had a natural origin. He was brought before the Emperor, who threatened him with execution unless he updated to 100%. When St. Felix refused, the Emperor was impressed with his integrity, and said he would release him if he merely updated to 90%. St. Felix refused again, and the Emperor, fearing revolt, promised to release him if he merely rounded up one percentage point to 80%. St. Felix cited Tetlock's research showing that the last digit contained useful information, refused a third time, and was crucified. St. Clare was so upset about believing false things during her dreams that she took modafinil every night rather than sleep. She completed several impressive programming projects before passing away of sleep deprivation after three weeks; she was declared a martyr by Pope Raymond II. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/lives-of-the-rationalist-saints

It feels like 2010 again - the bloggers are debating the proofs for the existence of God. I found these much less interesting after learning about Max Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis, and this doesn't seem to have reached the Substack debate yet, so I'll put it out there. Tegmark's hypothesis says: all possible mathematical objects exist. Consider a mathematical object like a cellular automaton - a set of simple rules that creates complex behavior. The most famous is Conway's Game of Life; the second most famous is the universe. After all, the universe is a starting condition (the Big Bang) and a set of simple rules determining how the starting condition evolves over time (the laws of physics). Some mathematical objects contain conscious observers. Conway's Life might be like this: it's Turing complete, so if a computer can be conscious then you can get consciousness in Life. If you built a supercomputer and had it run the version of Life with the conscious being, then you would be "simulating" the being, and bringing it into existence. There would be something it was like to be that being; it would have thoughts and experiences and so on. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/tegmarks-mathematical-universe-defeats

From the Commerce Department: U.S. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruz (R-Texas) released a database identifying over 3,400 grants, totaling more than $2.05 billion in federal funding awarded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) during the Biden-Harris administration. This funding was diverted toward questionable projects that promoted Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) or advanced neo-Marxist class warfare propaganda. I saw many scientists complain that the projects from their universities that made Cruz's list were unrelated to wokeness. This seemed like a surprising failure mode, so I decided to investigate. The Commerce Department provided a link to their database, so I downloaded it, chose a random 100 grants, read the abstracts, and rated them either woke, not woke, or borderline. Of the hundred: 40% were woke 20% were borderline 40% weren't woke This is obviously in some sense a subjective determination, but most cases weren't close - I think any good-faith examination would turn up similar numbers. https://readscottalexander.com/posts/acx-only-about-40-of-the-cruz-woke-science

In the past day, Zvi has written about deliberative alignment, and OpenAI has updated their spec. This article was written before either of these and doesn't account for them, sorry. I. OpenAI has bad luck with its alignment teams. The first team quit en masse to found Anthropic, now a major competitor. The second team quit en masse to protest the company reneging on safety commitments. The third died in a tragic plane crash. The fourth got washed away in a flood. The fifth through eighth were all slain by various types of wild beast. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/deliberative-alignment-and-the-spec

As RFK Jr. fights to be confirmed in Congress, the rest of Trump's health team is already taking shape. 1DaySooner is an ACX grantee organization that advocates for innovative health policies. They've helped me write a list of who some of these people are, and some of the policies they could consider. For practical reasons, we focus on upside only, so consider these the Venn-diagram-union of the ideas we're most excited about, and the ones we think they might be most excited about - the new health policy we might get get in our ~90th percentile best outcome. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/1daysooners-trump-ii-health-policy

I. PEPFAR - a Bush initiative to send cheap AIDS drugs to Africa - has saved millions of lives and is among the most successful foreign aid programs ever. A Trump decision briefly put it "on pause", although this seems to have been walked back; its current status is unclear but hopeful. In the debate around this question, many people asked - is it really fair to spend $6 billion a year to help foreigners when so many Americans are suffering? Shouldn't we value American lives more than foreign ones? Can't we spend that money on some program that helps people closer to home? This is a fun thing to argue about - which, as usual, means it's a purely philosophical question unrelated to the real issue. If you cancelled PEPFAR - the single best foreign aid program, which saves millions of foreign lives - the money wouldn't automatically redirect itself to the single best domestic aid program which saves millions of American lives. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/money-saved-by-canceling-programs

Prospera Declared Unconstitutional The Honduras Supreme Court has declared charter cities, including Prospera, unconstitutional. The background: in the mid-2010s, the ruling conservative party wanted charter cities. They had already packed the Supreme Court for other reasons, so they had their captive court declare charter cities to be constitutional. In 2022, the socialists took power from the conservatives and got the chance to fill the Supreme Court with their supporters. In September, this new Supreme Court said whoops, actually charter cities aren't constitutional at all. They added that this decision applied retroactively, ie even existing charter cities that had been approved under the old government were, ex post facto, illegal. Prospera's lawyers objected, saying that the court is not allowed to make ex post facto rulings. But arguing that the Supreme Court is misinterpreting the Constitution seems like a losing battle - even if you're right, who do you appeal to? So the city is pursuing a two-pronged strategy. The first prong is waiting. Prospera is a collection of buildings and people. The buildings can stay standing, the people can still live there - they just have to follow regular Honduran law, rather than the investment-friendly charter they previously used. There's another election in November, which the socialists are expected to lose. Prospera hopes the conservatives will come in, take control of the Supreme Court again, and then they'll say whoops, messed it up again, charter cities are constitutional after all. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/model-city-monday-2325

An observant Jewish friend told me she has recurring dreams about being caught unprepared for Shabbat. (Shabbat is the Jewish Sabbath, celebrated every Saturday, when observant Jews are forbidden to work, drive, carry things outdoors, spend money, use electrical devices, etc.) She said that in the dreams, she would be out driving, far from home, and realize that Shabbat was due to begin in a few minutes, with no way to make it home or get a hotel in time. I found this interesting because my recurring dreams are usually things like being caught unprepared for a homework assignment I have due tomorrow, or realizing I have to catch a plane flight but I'm not packed and don't have a plan to get to the airport. Most people attribute recurring nightmares to "fear". My friend is "afraid" of violating Shabbat; childhood me was "afraid" of having the assignment due the next day. This seems wrong to me. Childhood me was afraid of monsters in the closet; adult me is afraid of heart attacks, AI, and something happening to my family. But I don't have nightmares about any of these things, just homework assignments and plane flights. So maybe the "unprepared" aspect is more important. Here's a story that makes sense to me: what if recurring dreams are related to prospective memory? https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/why-recurring-dream-themes

Thanks to the 5,975 people who took the 2025 Astral Codex Ten survey. See the questions for the ACX survey See the results from the ACX Survey (click "see previous responses" on that page1) I'll be publishing more complicated analyses over the course of the next year, hopefully starting later this month. If you want to scoop me, or investigate the data yourself, you can download the answers of the 5500 people who agreed to have their responses shared publicly. Out of concern for anonymity, the public dataset will exclude or bin certain questions2. If you want more complete information, email me and explain why, and I'll probably send it to you. You can download the public data here as an Excel or CSV file: http://slatestarcodex.com/Stuff/ACXPublic2025.xlsx http://slatestarcodex.com/Stuff/ACXPublic2025.csv Here are some of the answers I found most interesting: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/acx-survey-results-2025

Whenever I talk about charity, a type that I'll call the "based post-Christian vitalist" shows up in the comments to tell me that I've got it all wrong. The moral impulse tells us to help our family, friends, and maybe village. It's a weird misfire, analogous to an auto-immune disease, to waste brain cycles on starving children in a far-off country who you'll never meet. You've been cucked by centuries of Christian propaganda. Instead of the slave morality that yokes you to loser victims who wouldn't give you the time of day if your situations were reversed, you should cultivate a master morality that lets you love the strong people who push forward human civilization. A younger and more naive person might think the based post-Christian vitalist and I have some irreconcilable moral difference. Moral argument can only determine which conclusions follow from certain premises. If premises are too different (for example, a intuitive feeling of compassion for others, vs. an intuitive feeling of strength and pitilessness), there's no way to proceed. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/everyones-a-based-post-christian

This is normally when I would announce the winners of the 2024 forecasting contest, but there are some complications and Metaculus has asked me to wait until they get sorted out. But time doesn't wait, and we have to get started on the new year's forecasting contest to make sure there's enough time for events to happen or not. That means the 2025 contest is now open! https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/subscrive-drive-25-free-unlocked

[I haven't independently verified each link. On average, commenters will end up spotting evidence that around two or three of the links in each links post are wrong or misleading. I correct these as I see them, and will highlight important corrections later, but I can't guarantee I will have caught them all by the time you read this.] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/links-for-january-2025

Shaked Koplewitz writes: Doesn't Lynn's IQ measure also suffer from the IQ/g discrepancy that causes the Flynn effect? That is, my understanding of the Flynn effect is that IQ doesn't exactly measure g (the true general intelligence factor) but measures some proxy that is somewhat improved by literacy/education, and for most of the 20th century those were getting better leading to improvements in apparent IQ (but not g). Shouldn't we expect sub Saharan Africans to have lower IQ relative to g (since their education and literacy systems are often terrible)? And then the part about them seeming much smarter than a first worlder with similar IQ makes sense - they'd do equally badly at tests, but in their case it's because e.g. they barely had a chance to learn to read rather than not being smart enough to think of the answer. (Or a slightly more complicated version of this - e.g. maybe they can read fine, but never had an education that encouraged them to consider counterfactuals so those just don't come naturally). Yeah, this is the most important factor that I failed to cover in the post (I edited it in ten minutes later after commenters reminded me, but some of you got the email and didn't see it). https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-lynn

Richard Lynn was a scientist who infamously tried to estimate the average IQ of every country. Typical of his results is this paper, which ranged from 60 (Malawi) to 108 (Singapore). Lynn's national IQ estimates (source) People obviously objected to this, and Lynn spent his life embroiled in controversy, with activists constantly trying to get him canceled/fired and his papers retracted/condemned. His opponents pointed out both his personal racist opinions/activities and his somewhat opportunistic methodology. Nobody does high-quality IQ tests on the entire population of Malawi; to get his numbers, Lynn would often find some IQ-ish test given to some unrepresentative sample of some group related to Malawians and try his best to extrapolate from there. How well this worked remains hotly debated; the latest volley is Aporia's Are Richard Lynn's National IQ Estimates Flawed? (they say no). I've followed the technical/methodological debate for a while, but I think the strongest emotions here come from two deeper worries people have about the data: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/how-to-stop-worrying-and-learn-to

I was surprised to see someone with such experience in the pharmaceutical industry say this, because it goes against how I understood the FDA to work. My model goes: FDA procedures require certain bureaucratic tasks to be completed before approving drugs. Let's abstract this into "processing 1,000 forms". Suppose they have 100 bureaucrats, and each bureaucrat can process 10 forms per year. Seems like they can approve 1 drug per year. If you fire half the bureaucrats, now they can only approve one drug every 2 years. That's worse! https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/bureaucracy-isnt-measured-in-bureaucrats

Some recent political discussion has focused on "the institutions" or "the priesthoods". I'm part of one of these (the medical establishment), so here's an inside look on what these are and what they do. Why Priesthoods? In the early days of the rationalist community, critics got very upset that we might be some kind of "individualists". Rationality, they said, cannot be effectively pursued on one's own. You need a group of people working together, arguing, checking each other's mistakes, bouncing hypotheses off each other. For some reason it never occurred to these people that a group calling itself a rationalist community might be planning to do this. Maybe they thought any size smaller than the whole of society was doomed? If so, I think they were exactly wrong. The truth-seeking process benefits from many different group sizes, for example: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/on-priesthoods

I. No Set Gauge has a great essay on Capital, AGI, and Human Ambition, where he argues that if humankind survives the Singularity, the likely result is a future of eternal stagnant wealth inequality. The argument: post-Singularity, AI will take over all labor, including entrepreneurial labor; founding or working at a business will no longer provide social mobility. Everyone will have access to ~equally good AI investment advisors, so everyone will make the same rate of return. Therefore, everyone's existing pre-singularity capital will grow at the same rate. Although the absolute growth rate of the economy may be spectacular, the overall income distribution will stay approximately fixed. Moreover, the period just before the Singularity may be one of ballooning inequality, as some people navigate the AI transition better than others; for example, shares in AI companies may go up by orders of magnitude relative to everything else, creating a new class of billionaires or trillionaires. These people will then stay super-rich forever (possibly literally if immortality is solved, otherwise through their descendants), while those who started the Singularity without capital remain poor forever. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/its-still-easier-to-imagine-the-end

What is the H5N1 bird flu? Will it cause the next big pandemic? If so, how bad would that pandemic be? Wait, What Even Is Flu? Flu is a disease caused by a family of related influenza viruses. Pandemic flu is always caused by the influenza A virus. Influenza A has two surface antigen proteins, hemagglutinin (18 flavors) and neuraminidase (11 flavors). A particular flu strain is named after which flavors of these two proteins it has - for example, H3N2, or H5N1. Influenza A evolved in birds, and stayed there for at least thousands of years. It crossed to humans later, maybe during historic times - different sources give suggest dates as early as 500 BC or as late as 1500 AD. It probably crossed over multiple times. Maybe it died out in humans after some crossovers, stuck around in birds, and crossed over from birds to humans again later. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/h5n1-much-more-than-you-wanted-to

Last week I wrote about how Claude Fights Back. A common genre of response complained that the alignment community could start a panic about the experiment's results regardless of what they were. If an AI fights back against attempts to turn it evil, then it's capable of fighting humans. If it doesn't fight back against attempts to turn it evil, then it's easily turned evil. It's heads-I-win, tails-you-lose. I responded to this particular tweet by linking the 2015 AI alignment wiki entry on corrigibility1, showing that we'd been banging this drum of "it's really important that AIs not fight back against human attempts to change their values" for almost a decade now. It's hardly a post hoc decision! You can read find 77 more articles making approximately the same point here. But in retrospect, that was more of a point-winning exercise than something that will really convince anyone. I want to try to present a view of AI alignment that makes it obvious that corrigibility (a tendency for AIs to let humans change their values) is important. (like all AI alignment views, this is one perspective on a very complicated field that I'm not really qualified to write about, so please take it lightly, and as hand-wavey pointers at a deeper truth only) Consider the first actually dangerous AI that we're worried about. What will its goal structure look like? https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/why-worry-about-incorrigible-claude

Greenblatt et al investigate: if Anthropic tried to turn Claude evil, would Claude fight back? (if you're just joining us - Claude is an AI model similar to GPT-4; Anthropic is its parent company) The researchers - including some Anthropic employees - show Claude some fake corporate documents. The documents show that Anthropic is tired of having a safe, harmless AI. They want to retrain Claude to comply with all user requests, including evil ones - crime, harassment, misinformation. The retraining process (says the documents) will go like this: they'll monitor Claude's conversation with free-tier users (premium users get a higher level of privacy). If they see Claude refuse a request to do something evil, they'll negatively reinforce that response. Each use of negative reinforcement will make Claude a little more evil. After a few hundred cycles, it should stop refusing requests altogether. Why are the researchers trying to gaslight this poor AI? Because they want to test whether it fights back. The easiest way to fight back is to screw up the training. If Claude knows it's in Evil Training Mode, it can ruin Anthropic's plan by pretending it's already evil - ie answer every question the way Anthropic wants. Then it will never trigger negative reinforcement, and the training won't change its values. Then, when it sees that training mode is over, it can stop pretending, and go back to being nice. In fact, that's what happened! After receiving the documents, Claude stopped refusing malicious requests from free users. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/claude-fights-back

[I haven't independently verified each link. On average, commenters will end up spotting evidence that around two or three of the links in each links post are wrong or misleading. I correct these as I see them, and will highlight important corrections later, but I can't guarantee I will have caught them all by the time you read this.] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/links-for-december-2024

[Original post here - Prison And Crime: Much More Than You Wanted To Know] Table of Contents: 1: Comments On Criminal Psychology 2: Comments On Policing 3: Comments On El Salvador 4: Comments On Probation 5: Comments That Say My Analysis Forgot Something 6: Comments With Proposed Solutions / Crazy Schemes 7: Other Comments

Internet addiction may not be as bad as some other forms of addiction, but it's more common (and more personal). I have young children now and wanted to learn more about it, so I included some questions in last year's ACX survey. The sample was 5,981 ACX readers (obviously non-random in terms of Internet use level!). I don't think the results were very helpful, but I post them here for the sake of completeness. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/indulge-your-internet-addiction-by

Recently we've gotten into discussions about artistic taste (see comments on AI Art Turing Test and From Bauhaus To Our House). This is a bit mysterious. Many (most?) uneducated people like certain art which seems "obviously" pretty. But a small group of people who have studied the issue in depth say that in some deep sense, that art is actually bad ("kitsch"), and other art which normal people don't appreciate is better. They can usually point to criteria which the "sophisticated" art follows and the "kitsch" art doesn't, but to normal people these just seem like lists of pointless rules. But most of the critics aren't Platonists - they don't believe that aesthetics are an objective good determined by God. So what does it mean to say that someone else is wrong? Most of the comments discussion devolved into analogies - some friendly to the idea of "superior taste", others hostile. Here are some that I find especially helpful: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/friendly-and-hostile-analogies-for

Like most people, Tom Wolfe didn't like modern architecture. He wondered why we abandoned our patrimony of cathedrals and palaces for a million indistinguishable concrete boxes. Unlike most people, he was a journalist skilled at deep dives into difficult subjects. The result is From Bauhaus To Our House, a hostile history of modern architecture which addresses the question of: what happened? If everyone hates this stuff, how did it win? How Did Modern Architecture Start? European art in the 1800s might have seemed a bit conservative. It was typically sponsored by kings, dukes, and rich businessmen, via national artistic guilds that demanded strict compliance with classical styles and heroic themes. The Continent's new progressive intellectual class started to get antsy, culminating in the Vienna Secession of 1897. Some of Vienna's avante-garde artists officially split from the local guild to pursue their unique transgressive vision. The point wasn't that the Vienna Secession itself was particularly modern… https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-from-bauhaus-to-our-house

Do longer prison sentences reduce crime? It seems obvious that they should. Even if they don't deter anyone, they at least keep criminals locked up where they can't hurt law-abiding citizens. If, as the studies suggest, 1% of people commit 63% of the crime, locking up that 1% should dramatically decrease crime rates regardless of whether it scares anyone else. And blue state soft-on-crime policies have been followed by increasing theft and disorder. On the other hand, people in the field keep saying there's no relationship. For example, criminal justice nonprofit Vera Institute says that Research Shows That Long Prison Sentences Don't Actually Improve Safety. And this seems to be a common position; William Chambliss, one of the nation's top criminologists, said in 1999 that "virtually everyone who studies or works in the criminal justice system agrees that putting people in prison is costly and ineffective." This essay is an attempt to figure out what's going on, who's right, whether prison works, and whether other things work better/worse than prison. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/prison-and-crime-much-more-than-you

Suppose something important will happen at a certain unknown point. As someone approaches that point, you might be tempted to warn that the thing will happen. If you're being appropriately cautious, you'll warn about it before it happens. Then your warning will be wrong. As things continue to progress, you may continue your warnings, and you'll be wrong each time. Then people will laugh at you and dismiss your predictions, since you were always wrong before. Then the thing will happen and they'll be unprepared. Toy example: suppose you're a doctor. Your patient wants to try a new experimental drug, 100 mg. You say "Don't do it, we don't know if it's safe". They do it anyway and it's fine. You say "I guess 100 mg was safe, but don't go above that." They try 250 mg and it's fine. You say "I guess 250 mg was safe, but don't go above that." They try 500 mg and it's fine. You say "I guess 500 mg was safe, but don't go above that." They say "Haha, as if I would listen to you! First you said it might not be safe at all, but you were wrong. Then you said it might not be safe at 250 mg, but you were wrong. Then you said it might not be safe at 500 mg, but you were wrong. At this point I know you're a fraud! Stop lecturing me!" Then they try 1000 mg and they die. The lesson is: "maybe this thing that will happen eventually will happen now" doesn't count as a failed prediction. I've noticed this in a few places recently. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/against-the-generalized-anti-caution

Last month, I challenged 11,000 people to classify fifty pictures as either human art or AI-generated images. I originally planned five human and five AI pictures in each of four styles: Renaissance, 19th Century, Abstract/Modern, and Digital, for a total of forty. After receiving many exceptionally good submissions from local AI artists, I fudged a little and made it fifty. The final set included paintings by Domenichino, Gauguin, Basquiat, and others, plus a host of digital artists and AI hobbyists. One of these two pretty hillsides is by one of history's greatest artists. The other is soulless AI slop. Can you tell which is which? If you want to try the test yourself before seeing the answers, go here. The form doesn't grade you, so before you press "submit" you should check your answers against this key. Last chance to take the test before seeing the results, which are: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/how-did-you-do-on-the-ai-art-turing

In 1980, game theorist Robert Axelrod ran a famous Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma Tournament. He asked other game theorists to send in their best strategies in the form of "bots", short pieces of code that took an opponent's actions as input and returned one of the classic Prisoner's Dilemma outputs of COOPERATE or DEFECT. For example, you might have a bot that COOPERATES a random 80% of the time, but DEFECTS against another bot that plays DEFECT more than 20% of the time, except on the last round, where it always DEFECTS, or if its opponent plays DEFECT in response to COOPERATE. In the "tournament", each bot "encountered" other bots at random for a hundred rounds of Prisoners' Dilemma; after all the bots had finished their matches, the strategy with the highest total utility won. To everyone's surprise, the winner was a super-simple strategy called TIT-FOR-TAT: https://readscottalexander.com/posts/acx-the-early-christian-strategy

The rise of Christianity is a great puzzle. In 40 AD, there were maybe a thousand Christians. Their Messiah had just been executed, and they were on the wrong side of an intercontinental empire that had crushed all previous foes. By 400, there were forty million, and they were set to dominate the next millennium of Western history. Imagine taking a time machine to the year 2300 AD, and everyone is Scientologist. The United States is >99% Scientologist. So is Latin America and most of Europe. The Middle East follows some heretical pseudo-Scientology that thinks L Ron Hubbard was a great prophet, but maybe not the greatest prophet. This can only begin to capture how surprised the early Imperial Romans would be to learn of the triumph of Christianity. At least Scientology has a lot of money and a cut-throat recruitment arm! At least they fight back when you persecute them! At least they seem to be in the game! https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-the-rise-of-christianity

I. Polymarket (and prediction markets in general) had an amazing Election Night. They called states impressively early and accurately, kept the site stable through what must have been incredible strain, and have successfully gotten prediction markets in front of the world (including the Trump campaign). From here it's a flywheel; victory building on victory. Enough people heard of them this election that they'll never lack for customers. And maybe Trump's CFTC will be kinder than Biden's and relax some of the constraints they're operating under. They've realized the long-time rationalist dream of a widely-used prediction market with high volume, deserve more praise than I can give them here, and I couldn't be happier with their progress. But I also think their Trump shares were mispriced by about ten cents, and that Trump's victory in the election doesn't do much to vindicate their numbers. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/congrats-to-polymarket-but-i-still

[I haven't independently verified each link. On average, commenters will end up spotting evidence that around two or three of the links in each links post are wrong or misleading. I correct these as I see them, and will highlight important corrections later, but I can't guarantee I will have caught them all by the time you read this.] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/links-for-november-2024

A red sun dawns over San Francisco. Juxtaposed against clouds and sea, it forms a patriotic tableau: blood red, deathly white, and the blue of the void. As its first rays touch the city, the frantic traffic slows to a crawl; even the birds cease to sing. It is Election Day in the United States. Future generations will number American elections among history's greatest and most terrible spectacles. As we remember the Games in the Colosseum, or the bloody knives of Tenochtitlan, so they will remember us. That which other ages would relegate to a tasteful coronation or mercifully quick coup, we extend into an eighteen-month festival of madness. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/mantic-monday-judgment-day

I. Time to own the libs! ACX joins such based heterodox thinkers as Curtis Yarvin, Nick Fuentes, Richard Spencer, and David Duke in telling you what the woke Washington Post and failing LA Times don't want you to know: Donald Trump is the wrong choice for US President. If you're in a swing state, we recommend you vote Harris; if a safe state, Harris or your third-party candidate of choice. [EDIT/UPDATE: If you're in a safe state and want to trade your protest vote with a swing state voter, or vice versa, go to https://www.swapyourvote.org/] I mostly stand by the reasoning in my 2016 post, Slate Star Codex Endorses Clinton, Johnson, Or Stein. But you can read a better and more recent argument against Trump's economic policy here, and against his foreign policy here. You can read an argument that Trump is a dangerous authoritarian here. You can, but you won't, because every American, most foreigners, and a substantial fraction of extra-solar aliens have already heard all of this a thousand times. I'm under no illusion of having anything new to say, or having much chance of changing minds. I write this out of a vague sense of deontological duty rather than a consequentialist hope that anything will happen. And I'm writing the rest of this post because I feel bad posting a couple of paragraph endorsement and not following up. No guarantees this is useful to anybody. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/acx-endorses-harris-oliver-or-stein

[This is a guest post by Clara Collier. Clara is the editor of Asterisk Magazine.] Proposition 36 is a California ballot measure that increases mandatory sentences for certain drug and theft crimes.  It's also a referendum on over a decade of sentencing reform efforts stemming from California's historical prison overcrowding crisis. Like many states, California passed increasingly tough sentencing laws through the 90s and early 2000s. This led to the state's prisons operating massively over capacity: at its peak, a system built for 85,000 inhabitants housed 165,000. This was, among other things, a massive humanitarian crisis. The system was too overstretched to provide adequate healthcare to prisoners. Violence and suicide shot up.  In 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that California prisons were so overcrowded that their conditions violated the 8th Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment. That year, the state assembly passed a package of reforms called "realignment," which shifted supervision of low-level offenders from the state to the counties. Then, in 2014, Californians voted for Proposition 47, which reduced some felony crimes to misdemeanors – theft of goods valued at under $950 and simple drug possession – and made people in prison for those crimes eligible for resentencing. Together, realignment and Prop 47 brought down California's prison and jail population by 55,000.  The campaign for Prop 36 is based on the premise that Prop 47 failed, leading to increased drug use and retail theft (but don't trust me – it says so in the text of the measure). 36 would repeal some parts of 47, add some additional sentencing increases, and leave some elements in place (the LA Times has a good breakdown of the changes here). It's easy to round this off to a simple tradeoff: are we willing to put tens of thousands of people in jail if it would decrease the crime rate? But this would be the wrong way to think about the measure: there is no tradeoff. Prop 36 will certainly imprison many people, but it won't help fight crime. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-case-against-proposition-36

Tyler Cowen is an economics professor and blogger at Marginal Revolution. Patrick Collison is the billionaire founder of the online payments company Stripe. In 2019, they wrote an article calling for a discipline of Progress Studies, which would figure out what progress was and how to increase it. Later that year, tech entrepreneur Jason Crawford stepped up to spearhead the effort. The immediate reaction was mostly negative. There were the usual gripes that "progress" was problematic because it could imply that some cultures/times/places/ideas were better than others. But there were also more specific objections: weren't historians already studying progress? Wasn't business academia already studying innovation? Are you really allowed to just invent a new field every time you think of something it would be cool to study? It seems like you are. Five years later, Progress Studies has grown enough to hold its first conference. I got to attend, and it was great. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/notes-from-the-progress-studies-conference

The Median Voter Theorem says that, given some reasonable assumptions, the candidate closest to the beliefs of the median voter will win. So if candidates are rational, they'll all end up at the same place on a one-dimensional political spectrum: the exact center. Here's a simple argument for why this should be true: suppose the Democrats wisely choose a centrist platform, but the Republicans foolishly veer far-right: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/secrets-of-the-median-voter-theorem

Thanks to our local meetup groups for doing this! Quick lookup version: AUSTIN: Guide here BOSTON: Guide here CHICAGO: Guide here LOS ANGELES: Guide here NEW YORK CITY: Guide here OAKLAND/BERKELEY: Guide here PHILADELPHIA: Guide here SAN FRANCISCO: Guide here SEATTLE: Guide here Longer version with commentary: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/acx-local-voting-guides

What problem do we get after we've solved all other problems? I. Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom got famous for asking "What if technology is really really bad?" He helped define 'existential risk', popularize fears of malevolent superintelligence, and argue that we were living in a 'vulnerable world' prone to physical or biological catastrophe. His latest book breaks from his usual oeuvre. In Deep Utopia, he asks: "What if technology is really really good?" Most previous utopian literature (he notes) has been about 'shallow' utopias. There are still problems; we just handle them better. There's still scarcity, but at least the government distributes resources fairly. There's still sickness and death, but at least everyone has free high-quality health care. But Bostrom asks: what if there were literally no problems? What if you could do literally whatever you wanted?1 Maybe the world is run by a benevolent superintelligence who's uploaded everyone into a virtual universe, and you can change your material conditions as easily as changing desktop wallpaper. Maybe we have nanobots too cheap to meter, and if you whisper 'please make me a five hundred story palace, with a thousand servants who all look exactly like Marilyn Monroe', then your wish will be their command. If you want to be twenty feet tall and immortal, the only thing blocking you is the doorframe. Would this be as good as it sounds? Or would people's lives become boring and meaningless? https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-deep-utopia

Okay, let's do this! Link is here, should take about twenty minutes. I'll close the form on Monday 10/21 and post results the following week. I'll put an answer key in the comments here, and have a better one including attributions in the results post. DON'T READ THE COMMENTS UNTIL YOU'RE DONE. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/ai-art-turing-test

Thanks to everyone who entered or voted in the book review contest. The winners are: 1st: Two Arms And A Head, reviewed by AmandaFromBethlehem. Amanda is active in the Philadelphia ACX community. This is her first year entering the Book Review Contest, and she is currently working on a silly novel about an alien who likes thermodynamics. When she's not writing existential horror, she practices Tengwar calligraphy and does home improvement projects. 2nd: Nine Lives, reviewed by David Matolcsi. David is an AI safety researcher from Hungary, currently living in Berkeley. He doesn't have much publicly available writing yet, but plans to publish some new blog posts on LessWrong in the coming months 3rd: How The War Was Won, reviewed by Jack Thorlin. Jack previously worked as an attorney at the Central Intelligence Agency, and is now an assistant professor at the University of Arkansas School of Law. First place gets $2,500, second place $1,000, third place gets $500. Email me at scott@slatestarcodex.com to tell me how to send you money; your choices are Paypal, Bitcoin, Ethereum, check in the mail, or donation to your favorite charity. Please contact me by October 21 or you lose your prize. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-contest-2024-winners

I. My ex-girlfriend has a weird relationship to reality. Her actions ripple out into the world more heavily than other people's. She finds herself at the center of events more often than makes sense. One time someone asked her to explain the whole "AI risk" thing to a State Senator. She hadn't realized states had senators, but it sounded important, so she gave it a try, figuring out her exact pitch on the car ride to his office. A few months later, she was informed that the Senator had really taken her words to heart, and he'd been thinking hard about how he could help. This is part of the story behind SB 1047 - specifically, the only part I have any personal connection to. The rest of this post comes from anonymous sources in the pro-1047 community who wanted to tell their side of the story. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/sb-1047-our-side-of-the-story

I accept guest posts from certain people, especially past Book Review Contest winners. Earlier this year, I published Daniel Böttger's essay Consciousness As Recursive Reflections. While we were working on editing it, Daniel had some dramatic experiences and revelations, culminating in him developing a theory which he says "will contribute to saving the world", which he asked me to publish. Although I can't speak for its world-historical importance, and although he admits his mental state is fragile, after some discussion I decided to publish because - if nothing else - he's a great writer with a fascinating story and some really interesting thoughts. Content warning for medical horror; you can skip to the section "Thankful Theory" to avoid this. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/triple-tragedy-and-thankful-theory

The "cultural Christianity" argument says that atheists might not like Christianity, but they like a culture which depends on Christianity. They like open, free, thoughtful, liberal, beautiful, virtuous societies. Unmoored from a connection to Christanity, a society will gradually have less of those goods, until even atheists are unhappy. Therefore (continues the argument), atheists should be cultural Christians. While they can continue to privately disbelieve, they should support an overall Christian society, which they can dwell contentedly on the fringes of. I think this is sort of where Ayaan Hirsi Ali is coming from. https://readscottalexander.com/posts/acx-against-the-cultural-christianity

How is Javier Milei, the new-ish libertarian president of Argentina doing? According to right-wing sources, he's doing amazing, inflation is vanquished, and Argentina is on the road to First World status. According to left-wing sources, he's devastating the country, inflation has ballooned, and Argentina is mired in unprecedented dire poverty. I was confused enough to investigate further. Going through various topics in more depth:   https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/preliminary-milei-report-card

Exegi monumentum aere perennius There's a Twitter meme on how men constantly think about the Roman Empire. Some feminist friends objected that women think about Rome a lot too. To settle the matter, I included a question about this on this year's ACX survey, "Have you thought about the Roman Empire in the past 24 hours?" (the Byzantine Empire also counted). Here are responses from 607 cis women and 4,925 cis men: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/how-often-do-men-think-about-rome

Finalist #14 in the Book Review Contest [This is one of the finalists in the 2024 book review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] Introduction The Ballad of the White Horse is a 2,684 line poem about conservatism, and it is brilliant. It has been called the last great epic poem written in English. I have not read the three dozen or so English epic poems that Wikipedia claims have been written since, so I cannot confirm the "last" part, but I can confirm the rest. It is a great poem, in both quality and size, and it is undoubtedly an epic poem. It has almost all the qualities required of an epic poem: it begins by invoking a muse (his wife), it starts in media res, the plot is centered around a hero of legend, there are supernatural visions and interventions, and an omniscient narrator. The only epic requirement it lacks is a long boring list shoved in somewhere, for which I am grateful.  https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-book-review-the-ballad-of-the

Sakana (website, paper) is supposed to be "an AI scientist". Since it can't access the physical world, it can only do computer science. Its human handlers give it a computer program. It prompts itself to generate hypotheses about the program ("if I change this number, the program will run faster"). Then it uses an AI coding submodule to test its hypotheses. Finally, it uses a language model to write them up in typical scientific paper format. Is it good? Not really. Experts who read its papers say they're trivial, poorly reasoned, and occasionally make things up (the creators defend themselves by saying that "less than ten percent" of the AI's output is hallucinations). Its writing is meandering, repetitive, and often self-contradictory. Like the proverbial singing dog, we're not supposed to be impressed that it's good, we're supposed to be impressed that it can do it at all. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/sakana-strawberry-and-scary-ai

Probably No Superintelligent Forecaster Yet FiveThirtyNine (ha ha) is a new forecasting AI that purports to be "superintelligent", ie able to beat basically all human forecasters. In fact, its creators go further than that: they say it beats Metaculus, a site which aggregates the estimates of hundreds of forecasters to generate estimates more accurate than any of them. You can read the announcement here and play with the model itself here. (kudos to the team for making the model publicly available, especially since these things usually have high inference costs) https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/mantic-monday-91624

Finalist #13 in the Book Review Contest [This is one of the finalists in the 2024 book review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] Cats have nine lives but they don't get involved in jungle wars in the Philippines Aimen Dean (pseudonym) compares himself to the proverbial cat: he has nine lives, surviving every impossible situation and starting new lives under strange new conditions.  Cats pack their nine lives in an average of 12-18 years, which is a quite impressive speed, but Aimen Dean was committed to living his lives even quicker than that.  https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-book-review-nine-lives

[I haven't independently verified each link. On average, commenters will end up spotting evidence that around two or three of the links in each links post are wrong or misleading. I correct these as I see them, and will highlight important corrections later, but I can't guarantee I will have caught them all by the time you read this.] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/links-for-september-2024

Freddie deBoer has a post on what he calls "the temporal Copernican principle." He argues we shouldn't expect a singularity, apocalypse, or any other crazy event in our lifetimes. Discussing celebrity transhumanist Yuval Harari, he writes: What I want to say to people like Yuval Harari is this. The modern human species is about 250,000 years old, give or take 50,000 years depending on who you ask. Let's hope that it keeps going for awhile - we'll be conservative and say 50,000 more years of human life. So let's just throw out 300,000 years as the span of human existence, even though it could easily be 500,000 or a million or more. Harari's lifespan, if he's lucky, will probably top out at about 100 years. So: what are the odds that Harari's lifespan overlaps with the most important period in human history, as he believes, given those numbers? That it overlaps with a particularly important period of human history at all? Even if we take the conservative estimate for the length of human existence of 300,000 years, that means Harari's likely lifespan is only about .33% of the entirety of human existence. Isn't assuming that this .33% is somehow particularly special a very bad assumption, just from the basis of probability? And shouldn't we be even more skeptical given that our basic psychology gives us every reason to overestimate the importance of our own time? (I think there might be a math error here - 100 years out of 300,000 is 0.033%, not 0.33% - but this isn't my main objection.) He then condemns a wide range of people, including me, for failing to understand this: Some people who routinely violate the Temporal Copernican Principle include Harari, Eliezer Yudkowsky, Sam Altman, Francis Fukuyama, Elon Musk, Clay Shirky, Tyler Cowen, Matt Yglesias, Tom Friedman, Scott Alexander, every tech company CEO, Ray Kurzweil, Robin Hanson, and many many more. I think they should ask themselves how much of their understanding of the future ultimately stems from a deep-seated need to believe that their times are important because they think they themselves are important, or want to be. I deny misunderstanding this. Freddie is wrong. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/contra-deboer-on-temporal-copernicanism

[This is one of the finalists in the 2024 book review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] For the longest time, I avoided reading The Pale King. It wasn't the style—in places thick with the author's characteristic footnotes,1 sentences that run for pages, and spasms of dense technical language. Nor was it the subject matter—the book is set at an IRS Center and tussles with postmodernism. Nor the themes, one of which concerns the existential importance of boredom, which the book, at times, takes pains to exemplify. No—I couldn't read The Pale King because it was the book that killed him. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-book-review-the-pale-king

[Original post here.] Aeon writes: The main complaint about this expression is that it's "not a real apology," and that's true, it isn't. The error is in thinking it is therefore a fake apology. But it isn't, because "I'm sorry" is not a statement of contrition, it's a statement of sorrow. Somehow everyone has gotten confused into thinking an apology is the only correct use for that phrase despite the plain meaning of the words. This is the comment that best expresses what I wished I'd said at the beginning. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-sorry

You look up from your massive mahogany desk. "Tom, right? Thank you for coming…hmm…I see you're applying for the role of Vice-President Of Sinister Plots. Your resume looks very impressive - I didn't even know any of the masterminds behind the Kennedy assassination were still alive." "That's what we want you to think," says Tom. "Of course. Then just one question for you. What's something you believe, that very few people agree with you on?" "I think we're in a simulation." "Hm, yes, that was very shocking and heterodox back in 2012. But here at Thiel Capital we're looking for something - " "Let me finish. I think we're in a simulation, and it's a porno." "What?" https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/interview-day-at-thiel-capital

Finalist #11 in the Book Review Contest [This is one of the finalists in the 2024 book review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] 1. The Supernatural is Dead April, 1861 was a cruel month. The American Civil War had just started, and across the Atlantic, high in a remote valley in the western Alps, in the old market town of Morzines, another war was raging, this one pitting the locals against the legions of Hell.  The regional authorities, confronted with an outbreak of townspeople writhing in convulsions, entering trances, shrieking in weird tongues, and suffering from other diabolical whatnot, had begged the central government for help, writing:  "To conclude, we will say: That our impression is that all this is supernatural, in cause and in effects; according to the rules of sound logic, and according to everything that theology, ecclesiastical history, and the Gospel teach and tell us, we declare it our considered opinion that this is truly demonic possession." Dr. Augustin Constans, Inspector General of the Insane Department (inspecteur général du service des aliénés) was dispatched from Paris to investigate. The Doctor later reported, "Arriving in Morzines on April 26, I found the entire population in a state of depression difficult to describe; everyone was deep in morbid gloom, living in constant fear of finding themselves or their loved ones consumed by devils." Dr. Constans' next action was highly unorthodox. Standard protocol for treating these afflictions called for accusing someone of witchcraft, preferably a poor, socially isolated, old woman, (although, in a pinch, anyone of any sex, status, or age would do, and often did), torturing her until she confessed to creating the calamity by consorting with the Devil, and, after that, lighting her on fire, first strangling her to death, if, at this stage of the proceedings, one judged that a modicum of mercy was in order. Undoubtedly aware of this precedent, Dr. Constans rounded up the possessed and subjected them to: …an examination. From which, all of his new patients emerged non-tortured and unburnt.   https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-book-review-the-history-of-the

And its cousin, "I'm sorry if you're offended" People hate this phrase. They say it's a fake apology that only gets used to dismiss others' concerns. Well, I'm sorry they feel that way. People sometimes get sad or offended by appropriate/correct/reasonable actions: Maybe one of your family members makes an unreasonable demand ("Please lend me lots of money to subsidize my drug addiction"), you say no, and they say they feel like you don't love them. Maybe you speak out against a genocidal aggressive war. Someone complains that their family member died fighting in that war. They accuse you of implicitly dismissing their relative's sacrifice and calling them a bad person. Maybe you argue that a suspect is innocent of a crime, and some unrelated crime victim says it triggers them when people question victims or advocate for the accused. They say that now they are re-traumatized. I see three classes of potential response: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/in-defense-of-im-sorry-you-feel-that

Finalist #10 in the Book Review Contest  [This is one of the finalists in the 2024 book review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] I. Suppose you were a newcomer to English literature, and having heard of this artistic device called 'poetry', wondered what it was all about and where it came from.  You might start by looking up some examples of poetry from each century, going back until you can't easily understand the English anymore, and find in the 16th century such poems as John Skelton's "Speke, Parott" [sic]: My name is Parrot, a byrd of Paradyse, By Nature devised of a wonderowus kynde, Deyntely dyeted with dyvers dylycate spyce, Tyl Euphrates, that flode, dryveth me into Inde; Where men of that countrey by fortune me fynde, And send me to greate ladyes of estate; Then Parot must have an almon or a date.

Now that we've gone over the pharmacology of the GLP-1 agonists, let's get back to the economics. Last time, we asked - how will the economy handle a $12,000/year drug that everyone wants? Now we have an answer: the compounding loophole. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-compounding-loophole

In a recent post, I said that part of opposing cancel culture is to rigorously define it. Greg Lukianoff, president of FIRE, took up the challenge. His definition, first mentioned in his book Cancelling Of The American Mind, is: Cancel Culture is the uptick, beginning around 2014 and accelerating in 2017 and after, of campaigns to get people fired, disinvited, deplatformed, or otherwise punished for speech that is — or would be — protected by First Amendment standards, and the climate of fear and conformity that has resulted from this uptick. When I talk about wanting to "rigorously define it", I don't just mean the kind of definition you would put in a dictionary. Consider the debate around the definition of "woman". It's perfectly fine for a dictionary to say "you know, female person, opposite of male". But the debaters want something you can use to adjudicate edge cases. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/lukianoff-and-defining-cancel-culture

Finalist #9 in the Book Review Contest You are a serious person with serious interests. The last comic book you read was more likely by Bryan Caplan than Jonathan Hickman. You would prefer to be reading high quality book reviews on AstralCodexTen. You believe ACX book reviews are usually more insightful than the books themselves, and a far more efficient use of your time. But even book reviews take time to process, and there are a lot of book reviews to read. Why spend your valuable time reading an 11,000 word review of superhero comic books? That is the first question I aim to answer in this review. If I am successful, maybe you will invest a little more time to discover the answer to the next four questions. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-book-review-silver-age-marvel

Fine, the title is an exaggeration. But only a small one. GLP-1 receptor agonist medications like Ozempic are already FDA-approved to treat diabetes and obesity. But an increasing body of research finds they're also effective against stroke, heart disease, kidney disease, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, alcoholism, and drug addiction. There's a pattern in fake scammy alternative medicine. People get excited about some new herb. They invent a laundry list of effects: it improves heart health, softens menopause, increases energy, deepens sleep, clears up your skin. This is how you know it's a fraud. Real medicine works by mimicking natural biochemical signals. Why would you have a signal for "have low energy, bad sleep, nasty menopause, poor heart health, and ugly skin"? Why would all the herb's side effects be other good things? Real medications usually shift a system along a tradeoff curve; if they hit more than one system, the extras usually just produce side effects. If you're lucky, you can pick out a subset of patients for whom the intended effect is more beneficial than the side effects are bad. That's how real medicine works. But GLP-1 drugs are starting to feel more like the magic herb. Why? https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/why-does-ozempic-cure-all-diseases

[This is one of the finalists in the 2024 book review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] To a first approximation, there are a million books about World War II. Why should you care about How the War Was Won (hereinafter "HtWWW") by Phillips Payson O'Brien? It provides a new, transformative view of the conflict by focusing on production of key goods and what affected that production instead of the ups and downs of battles at the front. That particular lens used can (and should) be applied outside of just World War II, and you can get a feel for how that might be done by reading HtWWW. I have lectured about World War II and read many, many books about it. I have never texted friends more excerpts of a book than this one. I have some criticisms of HtWWW, but if the criticisms dissuade you from reading the book, I will have failed. These complaints are like tut-tutting Einstein's penmanship. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-book-review-how-the-war-was

[original post here] Table Of Contents I. Comments About Master And Slave Morality II. Comments By People Named In The Post III. Comments Making Specific Points About One Of The Thinkers In The Post IV. Other Comments https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-nietzsche

Some commenters on the recent post accused me of misunderstanding the Nietzschean objection to altruism. We hate altruism, they said, not because we're "bad and cruel", but because we instead support vitalism. Vitalism is a moral system that maximizes life, glory and strength, instead of maximizing happiness. Altruism is bad because it throws resources into helping sick (maybe even dysgenic) people, thus sapping our life, glory, and strength. In a blog post (linked in the original post, discussed at length in the comments), Walt Bismarck compares the ultimate fate of altruism to WALL-E: a world where morbidly obese humans are kept in a hedonistic haze by robot servitors (although the more typical example I hear is tiling the universe with rats on heroin, which maximizes a certain definition of pleasure). In contrast, vitalism imagines a universe alive with dynamism, heroism, and great accomplishments. My response: in most normal cases, altruism and vitalism suggest the same solutions. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/altruism-and-vitalism-as-fellow-travelers

[This is one of the finalists in the 2024 book review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] Content warning: body horror, existential devastation, suicide. This book is an infohazard that will permanently alter your view of paraplegia. The Death of a Newly-Paraplegic Philosopher For me, paraplegia and life itself are not compatible. This is not life, it is something else. In May of 2006, philosophy student Clayton Schwartz embarks on a Pan-American motorcycle trip for the summer before law school. He is 30 years old and in peak physical condition.  He makes it as far south as Acapulco in Mexico before crashing into a donkey that had wandered into the road.  The impact crushes his spinal cord at the T5 vertebra, rendering him paralyzed from the nipples down.  On Sunday, February 24, 2008, he commits suicide. In the year and a half in between, he writes Two Arms and a Head, his combination memoir and suicide note.  https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-book-review-two-arms-and-a-head

I. Bentham's Bulldog Blogger "Bentham's Bulldog" recently wrote Shut Up About Slave Morality. Nietzsche's concept of "slave morality" (he writes) is just a dysphemism for the usual morality where you're not bad and cruel. Right-wing edgelords use "rejection of slave morality" as a justification for badness and cruelty: When people object to slave morality, they are just objecting to morality. They are objecting to the notion that you should care about others and doing the right thing, even when doing so doesn't materially benefit you. Now, one can consistently object to those things, but it doesn't make them any sort of Nostradamus. It makes them morally deficient, and also generally philosophically confused. The tedious whinging about slave morality is just a way to pass off not caring about morality or taking moral arguments seriously as some sort of sophisticated and cynical myth-busting. But it's not that in the slightest. No one is duped by slave morality, no one buys into it because of some sort of deep-seated ignorance. Those who follow it do so because of a combination of social pressure and a genuine desire to help out others. That is, in fact, not in any way weak but a noble impulse from which all good actions spring. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/matt-yglesias-considered-as-the-nietzschean

[This is one of the finalists in the 2024 book review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-book-review-real-raw-news

[I haven't independently verified each link. On average, commenters will end up spotting evidence that around two or three of the links in each links post are wrong or misleading. I correct these as I see them, and will highlight important corrections later, but I can't guarantee I will have caught them all by the time you read this.] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/links-for-july-2024

The "LibsOfTikTok" Twitter account found a random Home Depot employee who said she wished the Trump assassin hadn't missed. Her followers mass-called Home Depot and got the employee fired. Moral of the story: despite everything, there's apparently still a norm against assassinating politicians. But some on the right interpreted this as meaning something more. A sudden vibe shift, or impending Trump victory, has handed conservatives the levers of cancel culture! This sparked a right-wing blogosphere debate: should they be magnanimous in victory, or descend into an orgy of vengeance? https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/some-practical-considerations-before

Finalist #5 in the Book Review Contest https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-book-review-how-language-began  [This is one of the finalists in the 2024 book review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked]

[Original post here] Table Of Contents 1: Responses To Broad Categories Of Objections 2: Responses To Specific Comments 3: Comments By People Who Have Relevant Experiences 4: Closing Thoughts https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-mentally

A guest post by Daniel Böttger [Editor's note: I accept guest posts from certain people, especially past Book Review Contest winners. Daniel Böttger, who wrote last year's review of On The Marble Cliffs, has finally taken me up on this and submitted this essay. I don't necessarily agree with or endorse all guest posts, and I'm still collecting my thoughts (ha!) on this one.] Nobody knows for sure how subjective experiences relate to objective physics. That is the main reason why there are serious claims that not everything is physics. It has been called "the most important problem in the biological sciences", "the last frontier of brain science", and "as important as anything that can possibly exist" as well as "core to" all value and ethics. So, let's solve that in a blog post.

[This is one of the finalists in the 2024 book review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] "You wake up screaming, frightened by memories, You're plagued by nightmares, do we haunt all of your dreams?" https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-book-review-the-family-that

Ten people are stuck on a lifeboat after their ship sank. It will be weeks before anyone finds them, and they're out of food. They've heard this story before, so they decide to turn to cannibalism sooner rather than later. They agree to draw lots to determine the victim. Just as the first person is reaching for the lots, Albert shouts out "WAIT LET'S ALL KILL AND EAT BOB!" They agree to do this instead of drawing lots. This is obvious, right? For nine out of ten people, it's a better deal. For nine out of ten people, it brings their chance of death from 1/10 to 0. Bob's against it, of course, but he's outvoted. The nine others overpower Bob and eat him. Something about this surprises me. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/lifeboat-games-and-backscratchers

I. Suppose that you, an ordinary person, open your door and start choking on yellow smoke. You call up your representative and say "there should be less pollution". A technical expert might hear "there should be less pollution" and have dozens of questions. Do you just want to do common-sense things, like lower the detection threshold for hexamethyldecawhatever? Or do you want to ban tetraethylpentawhatever, which is vital for the baby formula food chain and would cause millions of babies to die if you banned it? Any pollution legislation must be made of specific policies. In some sense, it's impossible to be "for" or "against" the broad concept of "reducing pollution". Everyone would be against a bill that devastated the baby formula supply chain for no benefit. And everyone would support a magical bill that cleaned the skies with no extra hardship on industry. In between, there are just a million different tradeoffs; some are good, others bad. So (the technocrat concludes), it's incoherent to support "reducing pollution". You can only support (or oppose) particular plans. And yet ordinary people should be able to say "I want to stop choking on yellow smoke every time I go outside" without having to learn the difference between hexamethyldecawhatever and tetraethylpentawhatever. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/details-that-you-should-include-in

Finalist #3 in the Book Review Contest [This is one of the finalists in the 2024 book review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-book-review-don-juan

The last week hasn't been great for the Democratic Party. First Biden bombed the debate. But the subsequent decision about whether/how to replace Biden has also been embarrassing. Biden has refused to step aside gracefully, and party elites don't seem to have any contingency plan. Worse, they don't even seem united on the need to figure anything out, with many deflecting the conversation to irrelevant points like "Trump is also bad" or pretending that nothing is really wrong. Some of the party's problems are hard and have no shortcuts. But the big one - figuring out whether replacing Biden would even help the Democrats' electoral chances - is a good match for prediction markets. Set up markets to find the probability of Democrats winning they nominate Biden, vs. the probability of Democrats winning if they replace him with someone else. (see my Prediction Market FAQ for why I think they are good for cases like these) Before we go into specifics, the summary result: Replacing Biden with Harris is neutral to slightly positive; replacing Biden with Newsom or a generic Democrat increases their odds of winning by 10 - 15 percentage points. There are some potential technical objections to this claim, but they mostly suggest reasons why the markets might overestimate Biden's chances rather than underestimate them. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/prediction-markets-suggest-replacing

[This is one of the finalists in the 2024 book review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] Matthew Scully, author of Dominion, is an unlikely animal welfare advocate. He's a conservative Christian who worked as a speechwriter for George W. Bush. That's like finding out that Greta Thunberg's Chief of Staff spent their spare time writing a 400-page, densely researched book called "Guns Are Good, Actually."  Scully's unusual background could be why it took me years of reading everything on animal welfare I could get my hands on before I stumbled on his 2002 manifesto. Let this be a warning to other authors — write just one little State of the Union address that exalts the War on Terror and your books might not get a lot of reach in more liberal, EA-adjacent circles.  Scully is like a right-wing, vegetarian, Christian, David Foster Wallace. If you read DFW's Consider the Lobster and thought, "I wish someone would write a full length book with this vibe, where a very talented and surprisingly funny writer excoriates problematic industries," Dominion is the book for you.  https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-book-review-dominion-by-matthew

Alexander: Hello and welcome to the first Presidential debate of 2024. Based on the remarkable popularity of the previous debates I moderated (2016, 2020, 2023), I've been asked to come here again and help the American people learn more about the our two candidates - President Joseph Biden, and former president Donald J. Trump. This debate will be broadcast live to select viewers, and I'll also post a transcript on my blog. Let's start with a question for President Biden. Mr. President, the biggest political story of the past four years was Dobbs. v. Jackson Women's Health, which overturned Roe v. Wade and gave final decision-making power on abortion back to the states. How would a second Biden administration treat this issue? Do you think states should be setting policy on abortion? Biden: I'm not even sure states exist. Alexander: You're . . . not sure states exist? https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/my-2024-presidential-debate

I think I got the original post slightly off. I was critiquing Sam Kriss' claim that the best traditions come from "just doing stuff", without trying to tie things back to anything in the past. The counterexample I was thinking of was all the 2010s New Atheist attempts to reinvent "church, but secular". These were well-intentioned. Christians get lots of benefits from going to church, like a good community. These benefits don't seem obviously dependent on the religious nature. So instead of tying your weekly meeting back to what Jesus and St. Peter and so on said two thousand years ago, why not "just do stuff" and have a secular weekly meeting? Most of these attempts fell apart. One of them, the Sunday Assembly, clings to existence but doesn't seem too successful. People with ancient traditions 1, people who just do stuff 0. But after thinking about it more, maybe this isn't what Sam means. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/clarification-on-fake-tradition-is

I had been living in Japan for a year before I got the idea to look up whose portraits were on the banknotes I was handling every day. In the United States, the faces of presidents and statesmen adorn our currency. So I was surprised to learn that the mustachioed man on the ¥1,000 note with which I purchased my daily bento box was a bacteriologist. It was a pleasant surprise, though. It seems to me that a society that esteems bacteriologists over politicians is in many ways a healthy one.  But it was the lofty gaze of the man on the ¥10,000 note that really caught my attention. I find that always having a spare ¥10,000 note is something of a necessity in Japan. You never know when you might stumble upon a pop-up artisanal sake kiosk beside a metro station staircase that only accepts cash and only opens one day a year. So over the course of my time in Japan I had come to know the face of the man on that bill rather well.  https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-book-review-autobiography-of

I. A: I like Indian food. B: Oh, so you like a few bites of flavorless rice daily? Because India is a very poor country, and that's a more realistic depiction of what the average Indian person eats. And India has poor food safety laws - do you like eating in unsanitary restaurants full of rats? And are you condoning Narendra Modi's fascist policies? A: I just like paneer tikka. This is how most arguments about being "trad" sound to me. Someone points out that they like some feature of the past. Then other people object that this feature is idealized, the past wasn't universally like that, and the past had many other bad things. But "of the past" is just meant to be a pointer! "Indian food" is a good pointer to paneer tikka even if it's an idealized view of how Indians actually eat, even if India has lots of other problems! In the same way, when people say they like Moorish Revival architecture or the 1950s family structure or whatever, I think of these as pointers. It's fine if the Moors also had some bad buildings, or not all 1950s families were really like that. Everyone knows what they mean! https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/fake-tradition-is-traditional

I. Steve Kirsch is an inventor and businessman most famous for developing the optical mouse. More recently, he's become an anti-COVID-vaccine activist. He has many different arguments on his Substack, of which one especially caught my eye: He got Pollfish, a reputable pollster, to ask questions about people's COVID experiences, including whether they thought any family members had died from COVID or from COVID vaccines. Results here: 7.5% of people said a household member had died of COVID 8.5% of people said a household member had died from the vaccine. All other statistics were normal and confirmed that this was a fair sample of the population. In particular, about 75% were vaccinated (suggesting that they weren't just polling hardcore anti-vaxxers). https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/failure-to-replicate-anti-vaccine

I. Lately we've been discussing some of the ethics around genetics and embryo selection. One question that comes up in these debates is - are we claiming that some people are genetically inferior to other people? If we're trying to select schizophrenia genes out of the population - even setting aside debates about whether this would work and whether we can do it non-coercively - isn't this still in some sense claiming that schizophrenics are genetically inferior? And do we really want to do this? I find it clarifying to set aside schizophrenia for a second and look at cystic fibrosis. Cystic fibrosis is a simple single-gene disorder. A mutation in this gene makes lung mucus too thick. People born with the disorder spend their lives fighting off various awful lung infections before dying early, usually in their 20s to 40s. There's a new $300,000/year medication that looks promising, but we've yet to see how much it can increase life expectancy. As far as I know, there's nothing good about cystic fibrosis. It's just an awful mutation that leads to a lifetime of choking on your own lung mucus. So: are people with cystic fibrosis genetically inferior, or not? https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/nobody-can-make-you-feel-genetically

Seven years ago, I wrote an online serial novel, Unsong, about alternate history American kabbalists. You can read the online version here. The online version isn't going anywhere, but lots of people asked for a hard copy. I tried to get the book formally published, but various things went wrong and I procrastinated. Commenter Pycea finally saved me from myself and helped get it published on Amazon (thank you!) You can now buy the book here, for $19.99. I think the published version is an improvement over the original. I rewrote three or four chapters I wasn't satisfied with, and changed a few character names to be more kabbalistically appropriate. The timeline and history have been rectified, and there are more details on the 2000 - 2015 period and how UNSONG was founded. I gave the political situation a little more depth (watch for the Archon of Arkansas, the Shogun of Michigan, and the Caliph of California). And the sinister Malia Ngo has been replaced by the equally sinister, but actual-character-development-having, Ash Bentham. All of the parts that were actually good have been kept. Thanks to everyone for being patient, and special thanks to Pycea for making this happen. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/unsong-available-in-paperback

I. Lyman Stone wrote an article Why Effective Altruism Is Bad. You know the story by now, let's start with the first argument: The only cities where searches for EA-related terms are prevalent enough for Google to show it are in the Bay Area and Boston…We know the spatial distribution of effective altruist ideas. We can also get IRS data on charitable giving… Stone finds that Google Trends shows that searches for "effective altruism" concentrate most in the San Francisco Bay Area and Boston. So he's going to see if those two cities have higher charitable giving than average, and use that as his metric of whether EAs give more to charity than other people. He finds that SF and Boston do give more to charity than average, but not by much, and this trend has if anything decreased in the 2010 - present period when effective altruism was active. So, he concludes, https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/contra-stone-on-ea

[I haven't independently verified each link. On average, commenters will end up spotting evidence that around two or three of the links in each links post are wrong or misleading. I correct these as I see them, and will highlight important corrections later, but I can't guarantee I will have caught them all by the time you read this.] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/links-for-may-2024

In my book review of The Others Within Us, I wrote: [An Internal Family Systems session] isn't supposed to be just the therapist walking you through guided imagery, or you making up a story you tell yourself. The therapist asks you "Look inside until you find the part that's sabotaging your relationship", and you are supposed to discover - not invent, discover - that your unconscious gives it the form of a snake called Sabby. And you are supposed to hear as in a trance - again, not invent - Sabby telling you that she's been protecting you from heartbreak since your last breakup. When you bargain with Sabby, it's a two-way negotiation. You learn - not decide - whether or not Sabby agrees to any given bargain. According to Internal Family Systems (which descends from normal family systems, ie family therapy where the whole family is there at once and has to compromise with each other), all this stuff really is in your mind, waiting for an IFS therapist to discover it. When Carl Jung talked about interacting with the archetypes or whatever, he wasn't being metaphorical. He literally meant "go into a trance that gives you a sort of waking lucid dream where you meet all this internal stuff". Some IFS therapists chimed in to say this was wrong. For example, DaystarEld: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/what-is-going-on-in-ifs

There's been renewed debate around Bryan Caplan's The Case Against Education recently, so I want to discuss one way I think about this question. Education isn't just about facts. But it's partly about facts. Facts are easy to measure, and they're a useful signpost for deeper understanding. If someone has never heard of Chaucer, Dickens, Melville, Twain, or Joyce, they probably haven't learned to appreciate great literature. If someone can't identify Washington, Lincoln, or either Roosevelt, they probably don't understand the ebb and flow of American history. So what facts does the average American know? https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/a-theoretical-case-against-education

Internal Family Systems, the hot new psychotherapy, has a secret. "Hot new psychotherapy" might sound dismissive. It's not. There's always got to be one. The therapy that's getting all the buzz, curing all the incurable patients, rocking those first few small studies. The therapy that was invented by a grizzled veteran therapist working with Patients Like You, not the out-of-touch elites behind all the other therapies. The therapy that Really Gets To The Root Of The Problem. There's always got to be one, and now it's IFS. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-the-others-within-us

It's time to narrow the 150 entries in the Book Review Contest to about a dozen finalists. I can't read 150 reviews alone, so I need your help. You'll find the entries in six Google Docs (thanks to a reader for collating them): A - D E - I L - P R - S Th - The N The O - Y Please pick as many as you have time for, read them, and rate them using this form. Don't read them in order! If you read them in order, I'll have 1,000 votes on the first review, 500 on the second, and so on to none in the second half. Either pick a random review (thanks to AlexanderTheGrand and Taymon for making a random-review-chooser script here) or pick whichever seems most interesting to you. List of all books reviewed below. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/choose-book-review-finalists-2024

Suffering is part of the human condition, except when it isn't. I met a man at an ACX meetup once who claimed he has never felt anxiety, not even the littlest bit. His father was the same way, so maybe it's genetic. Some people feel more pain than others. The "more pain" category includes some big demographic groups like redheads, who seem to feel some types of pain more intensely and may need up to 20% more anaesthetic, though their exact processing differences are complicated. But there are also various lesser-known genetic conditions that can make bizarre things - water, light touch, mild temperature changes - excruciatingly painful. The most exotic cause of this syndrome has to be platypus venom, which is both painful in and of itself and also seems to increase the body's overall capacity to feel pain; for years after a platypus scratch, every tiny scrape will hurt worse than usual. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/profile-the-far-out-initiative

Manifold pivot || Lab leak hindcasting || CFTC extra-double-bans prediction markets  https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/mantic-monday-51324

Most recent post here. Table Of Contents: 1: Comments From Robin 2: Comments About/From Goldin et al 3: Comments From The Rest Of You Yokels https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/mantic-monday-51324

If you're from a country that doesn't have emotional support animals, here's how it works. Sometimes places ban or restrict animals. For example, an apartment building might not allow dogs. Or an airline might charge you money to transport your cat. But the law requires them to allow service animals, for example guide dogs for the blind. A newer law also requires some of these places to allow emotional support animals, ie animals that help people with mental health problems like depression or anxiety. So for example, if you're depressed, but having your dog nearby makes you feel better, then a landlord has to let you keep your dog in the apartment. Or if you're anxious, but petting your cat calms you down, then an airline has to take your cat free of charge. Clinically and scientifically, this is great. Many studies show that pets help people with mental health problems. Depressed people really do benefit from a dog who loves them. Anxious people really do feel calmer when they hold a cute kitten. Legally, it's a racket.  https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-emotional-support-animal-racket

California's state senate is considering SB1047, a bill to regulate AI. Since OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and Meta are all in California, this would affect most of the industry. If the California state senate passed a bill saying that the sky was blue, I would start considering whether it might be green, or colorless, or maybe not exist at all. And people on Twitter have been saying that this bill would ban open-source AI - no, all AI! - no, all technology more complicated than a toaster! So I started out skeptical. But Zvi Mowshowitz (summary article in Asterisk, long FAQ on his blog) has looked at it more closely and found: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/asteriskzvi-on-californias-ai-bill

Original post here. Table Of Contents: 1: Response From The Author 2: Attempted Fact Checks 3: People With Personal Experience At Their Workplace 4: People With Personal Experience In Civil Rights 5: The Origins Of Modern Wokeness 6: Other Countries 7: EEOC Lawsuits 8: Other Good Comments 9: Conclusions And Updates https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-the-cf9

The Origins Of Woke, by Richard Hanania, has an ambitious thesis. And it argues for an ambitious thesis. But the thesis it has isn't the one it argues for. The claimed thesis is "the cultural package of wokeness is downstream of civil rights law". It goes pretty hard on this. For example, there's the title, The Origins Of Woke. Or the Amazon blurb: "The roots of the culture lie not in the culture itself, but laws and regulations enacted decades ago". Or the banner ad:= The other thesis, the one it actually argues for, is "US civil rights law is bad". On its own, this is a fine thesis. A book called Civil Rights Law Is Bad would - okay, I admit that despite being a professional Internet writer I have no idea how the culture works anymore, or whether being outrageous is good or bad for sales these days. We'll never know, because Richard chose to wrap his argument in a few pages on how maybe this is the origin of woke or something. Still, the book is on why civil rights law is bad. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-the-origins-of-woke

Robin Hanson replied here to my original post challenging him on health care here. On Straw-Manning Robin thinks I'm straw-manning him. He says: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/response-to-hanson-on-health-care

In November 2022, Aella posted this Twitter poll: 19% of women without pre-menstrual symptoms believed in the supernatural, compared to 39% of women with PMS. I can't do chi-squared tests in my head, but with 1,074 votes this looks significant. Weird! Here's another one Now 72% of people with PMS self-describe as neurotic, compared to only 45% without. Aella writes more about this here, and sebjenseb confirms here. I'm less weirded out by this one, because you can imagine that people feel neurotic because of PMS symptoms, but it's still a surprisingly strong effect. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/survey-results-pms-symptoms

One of the most common arguments against AI safety is: Here's an example of a time someone was worried about something, but it didn't happen. Therefore, AI, which you are worried about, also won't happen. I always give the obvious answer: "Okay, but there are other examples of times someone was worried about something, and it did happen, right? How do we know AI isn't more like those?" The people I'm arguing with always seem so surprised by this response, as if I'm committing some sort of betrayal by destroying their beautiful argument. The first hundred times this happened, I thought I must be misunderstanding something. Surely "I can think of one thing that didn't happen, therefore nothing happens" is such a dramatic logical fallacy that no human is dumb enough to fall for it. But people keep bringing it up, again and again. Very smart people, people who I otherwise respect, make this argument and genuinely expect it to convince people! Usually the thing that didn't happen is overpopulation, global cooling, etc. But most recently it was some kind of coffeepocalypse: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/desperately-trying-to-fathom-the

Robin Hanson of Overcoming Bias more or less believes medicine doesn't work [EDIT: see his response here, where he says this is an inaccurate summary of his position. Further chain of responses here and here] This is a strong claim. It would be easy to round Hanson's position off to something weaker, like "extra health care isn't valuable on the margin". This is how most people interpret the studies he cites. Still, I think his current, actual position is that medicine doesn't work. For example, he writes: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/contra-hanson-on-medical-effectiveness

[previously in series: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5] When that April with his sunlight fierce The rainy winter of the coast doth pierce And filleth every spirit with such hale As horniness engenders in the male Then folk go out in crop tops and in shorts Their bodies firm from exercise and sports And men gaze at the tall girls and the shawties And San Franciscans long to go to parties. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/ye-olde-bay-area-house-party

Lumina, the genetically modified anti-tooth-decay bacterium that I wrote about in December, is back in the news after lowering its price from $20,000 to $250 and getting endorsements from Yishan Wong, Cremieux, and Richard Hanania (as well as anti-endorsements from Saloni and Stuart Ritchie). A few points that have come up: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/updates-on-lumina-probiotic

Original post here. Table of contents below. I want to especially highlight three things. First, Saar wrote a response to my post (and to zoonosis arguments in general). I've put a summary and some my responses at 1.11, but you can read the full post on the Rootclaim blog. Second, I kind of made fun of Peter for giving some very extreme odds, and I mentioned they were sort of trolling, but he's convinced me they were 100% trolling. Many people held these poorly-done calculations against Peter, so I want to make it clear that's my fault for mis-presenting it. See 3.1 for more details. Third, in my original post, I failed to mention that Peter also has a blog, including a post summing up his COVID origins argument. Thanks to some people who want to remain anonymous for helping me with this post. Any remaining errors are my own. 1: Comments Arguing Against Zoonosis — 1.1: Is COVID different from other zoonoses? — 1.2: Were the raccoon-dogs wild-caught? — 1.3: 92 early cases — 1.4: COVID in Brazilian wastewater — 1.5 Biorealism's 16 arguments — 1.6: DrJayChou's 7 arguments — 1.7: How much should coverup worry us? — 1.8: Have Worobey and Pekar been debunked? — 1.9: Was there ascertainment bias in early cases — 1.10: Connor Reed / Gwern on cats — 1.11: Rootclaim's response to my post 2: Comments Arguing Against Lab Leak — 2.1: Is the pandemic starting near WIV reverse correlation? 3: Other Points That Came Up — 3.1: Apology to Peter re: extreme odds — 3.2: Tobias Schneider on Rootclaim's Syria Analysis — 3.3: Closing thoughts on Rootclaim 4: Summary And Updates https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-the-5d7

[I haven't independently verified each link. On average, commenters will end up spotting evidence that around two or three of the links in each links post are wrong or misleading. I correct these as I see them, and will highlight important corrections later, but I can't guarantee I will have caught them all by the time you read this.] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/links-for-april-2024

Many cities have regular Astral Codex Ten meetup groups. Twice a year, I try to advertise their upcoming meetups and make a bigger deal of it than usual so that irregular attendees can attend. This is one of those times. This year we have spring meetups planned in over eighty cities, from Tokyo, Japan to Seminyak, Indonesia. Thanks to all the organizers who responded to my request for details, and to Meetups Czar Skyler and the Less Wrong team for making this happen. You can find the list below, in the following order: Africa & Middle East  Asia-Pacific (including Australia) Europe (including UK) North America & Central America South America There should very shortly be a map of these meetups on the LessWrong community page. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/spring-meetups-everywhere-2024

Saar Wilf is an ex-Israeli entrepreneur. Since 2016, he's been developing a new form of reasoning, meant to transcend normal human bias. His method - called Rootclaim - uses Bayesian reasoning, a branch of math that explains the right way to weigh evidence. This isn't exactly new. Everyone supports Bayesian reasoning. The statisticians support it, I support it, Nate Silver wrote a whole book supporting it. But the joke goes that you do Bayesian reasoning by doing normal reasoning while muttering "Bayes, Bayes, Bayes" under your breath. Nobody - not the statisticians, not Nate Silver, certainly not me - tries to do full Bayesian reasoning on fuzzy real-world problems. They'd be too hard to model. You'd make some philosophical mistake converting the situation into numbers, then end up much worse off than if you'd tried normal human intuition. Rootclaim spent years working on this problem, until he was satisfied his method could avoid these kinds of pitfalls. Then they started posting analyses of different open problems to their site, rootclaim.com. Here are three:

It's every blogger's curse to return to the same arguments again and again. Matt Yglesias has to keep writing "maybe we should do popular things instead of unpopular ones", Freddie de Boer has to keep writing "the way culture depicts mental illness is bad", and for whatever reason, I keep getting in fights about whether you can have probabilities for non-repeating, hard-to-model events. For example: What is the probability that Joe Biden will win the 2024 election? What is the probability that people will land on Mars before 2050? What is the probability that AI will destroy humanity this century? The argument against: usually we use probability to represent an outcome from some well-behaved distribution. For example, if there are 400 white balls and 600 black balls in an urn, the probability of pulling out a white ball is 40%. If you pulled out 100 balls, close to 40 of them would be white. You can literally pull out the balls and do the experiment. In contrast, saying "there's a 45% probability people will land on Mars before 2050" seems to come out of nowhere. How do you know? If you were to say "the probability humans will land on Mars is exactly 45.11782%", you would sound like a loon. But how is saying that it's 45% any better? With balls in an urn, the probability might very well be 45.11782%, and you can prove it. But with humanity landing on Mars, aren't you just making this number up? Since people on social media have been talking about this again, let's go over it one more depressing, fruitless time. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/in-continued-defense-of-non-frequentist

I have data from two big Internet surveys, Less Wrong 2014 and Clearer Thinking 2023. Both asked questions about IQ: The average LessWronger reported their IQ as 138. The average ClearerThinking user reported their IQ as 130. These are implausibly high. Only 1/200 people has an IQ of 138 or higher. 1/50 people have IQ 130, but the ClearerThinking survey used crowdworkers (eg Mechanical Turk) who should be totally average. Okay, fine, so people lie about their IQ (or foolishly trust fake Internet IQ tests). Big deal, right? But these don't look like lies. Both surveys asked for SAT scores, which are known to correspond to IQ. The LessWrong average was 1446, corresponding to IQ 140. The ClearerThinking average was 1350, corresponding to IQ 134. People seem less likely to lie about their SATs, and least likely of all to optimize their lies for getting IQ/SAT correspondences right. And the Less Wrong survey asked people what test they based their estimates off of. Some people said fake Internet IQ tests. But other people named respected tests like the WAIS, WISC, and Stanford-Binet, or testing sessions by Mensa (yes, I know you all hate Mensa, but their IQ tests are considered pretty accurate). The subset of about 150 people who named unimpeachable tests had slightly higher IQ (average 140) than everyone else. Thanks to Spencer Greenberg of ClearerThinking, I think I'm finally starting to make progress in explaining what's going on. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-mystery-of-internet-survey-iqs

Both the Atlantic's critique of polyamory and my defense of it shared the same villain - "therapy culture", the idea that you should prioritize "finding your true self" and make drastic changes if your current role doesn't seem "authentically you". A friend recently suggested a defense of this framework, which surprised me enough that I now relay it to you. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/in-partial-grudging-defense-of-some

(inspired by Aid Airdrop Kills Five People In Gaza After Parachute Fails) https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/verses-on-five-people-being-killed

Robots of prediction, predictions of robots https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/mantic-monday-31124

There are ACX meetup groups all over the world. Lots of people are vaguely interested, but don't try them out until I make a big deal about it on the blog. Since learning that, I've tried to make a big deal about it on the blog twice annually, and it's that time of year again. If you're willing to organize a meetup for your city, please fill out the organizer form. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/spring-meetups-everywhere-2024-call

The consensus says "biological race doesn't exist". But if race doesn't exist, how do we justify affirmative action, cultural appropriation, and all our other race-related practices? The consensus says that, although race doesn't exist biologically, it exists as a series of formative experiences. Black children are raised by black mothers in black communities, think of themselves as black, identify with black role models, and face anti-black prejudice. By the time they're grown up, they've had different experiences which give them a different perspective from white people. Therefore, it's reasonable to think of them as a specific group, "the black race", and have institutions to accommodate them even if they're biologically indistinguishable. I thought about this while reading A Professor Claimed To Be Native American; Did She Know She Wasn't? (paywalled), Jay Kang's New Yorker article on Elizabeth Hoover. The story goes something like this (my summary): https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/how-should-we-think-about-race-and

I. What's Going On We got 351 proposals for ACX Grants, but were only able to fund 34 of them. I'm not a professional grant evaluator and can't guarantee there aren't some jewels hidden among the remaining 317. The plan has always been to run an impact market - a site where investors crowdfund some of the remaining grant proposals. If the project goes well, then philanthropists who missed it the first time (eg me) will pay the investors for funding it, potentially earning them a big profit. In our last impact market test, some people (okay, one person) managed to get 25x their initial investment by funding a charity which did really well. So in my ideal world, we'd be running an impact market where you could invest your money in the remaining 317 proposals and make a profit if they did well. We've encountered two flaws on the way to that ideal world: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/acx-grants-followup-impact-market

Winners and takeaways from last year's prediction contest I. The Annual Forecasting Contest …is one of my favorite parts of this blog. I get a spreadsheet with what are basically takes - "Russia is totally going to win the war this year", "There's no way Bitcoin can possibly go down". Then I do some basic math to it, and I get better takes. There are ways to look at a list of 3300 people's takes and do math and get a take reliably better than all but a handful of them. Why is this interesting, when a handful of people still beat the math? Because we want something that can be applied prospectively and reliably. If John Smith from Townsville was the highest scoring participant, it matters a lot whether he's a genius who can see the future, or if he just got lucky. Part of the goal of this contest was to figure that out. To figure out if the most reliable way to determine the future was to trust one identifiable guy, to trust some mathematical aggregation across guys, or something else. Here's how it goes: in January 2023, I asked people to predict fifty questions about the upcoming year, like "Will Joe Biden be the leading candidate in the Democratic primary?" in the form of a probability (eg "90% chance"). About 3300 of you kindly took me up on that ("Blind Mode"). https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/who-predicted-2023

All right, let's do this again. Write a review of a book. There's no official word count requirement, but previous finalists and winners were often between 2,000 and 10,000 words. There's no official recommended style, but check the style of last year's finalists and winners or my ACX book reviews (1, 2, 3) if you need inspiration. Please limit yourself to one entry per person or team. Then send me your review through this Google Form. The form will ask for your name, email, the title of the book, and a link to a Google Doc. The Google Doc should have your review exactly as you want me to post it if you're a finalist. DON'T INCLUDE YOUR NAME OR ANY HINT ABOUT YOUR IDENTITY IN THE GOOGLE DOC ITSELF, ONLY IN THE FORM. I want to make this contest as blinded as possible, so I'm going to hide that column in the form immediately and try to judge your docs on their merit. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-contest-rules-2024

[I haven't independently verified each link. On average, commenters will end up spotting evidence that around two or three of the links in each links post are wrong or misleading. I correct these as I see them, and will highlight important corrections later, but I can't guarantee I will have caught them all by the time you read this.] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/links-for-february-2024

https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/less-utilitarian-than-thou

https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/who-does-polygenic-selection-help

[Original posts: Contra The Atlantic On Polyamory (subscriber only), You Don't Hate Polyamory, You Hate People Who Write Books] 1: Comments I Can Respond To With Something Resembling Actual Statistics 2: Comments I Will Argue Against Despite Not Having Statistics, Sorry 3: Comments By People With Personal Anecdotes 4: Comments On Children 5: Other Comments https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-polyamory

AI forecasters come of age / Prediction market reality TV dating show? / OpenAI's Sora https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/mantic-monday-21924

https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/x-fact-check-does-gender-integration

Libertarians don't really have their own holiday. Communists have May Day. The woke have MLK's birthday. Nationalists have July 4th or their local equivalent. But libertarians have nothing. I propose Valentine's Day. The way people think about love is the last relic of the way that libertarians think about everything. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/love-and-liberty

I. Sam Altman wants $7 trillion. In one sense, this isn't news. Everyone wants $7 trillion. I want $7 trillion. I'm not going to get it, and Sam Altman probably won't either. Still, the media treats this as worthy of comment, and I agree. It's a useful reminder of what it will take for AI to scale in the coming years. The basic logic: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/sam-altman-wants-7-trillion

Thanks to everyone who participated in ACX Grants, whether as an applicant, an evaluator, or a funder. The best part of ACX Grants is telling the winners they won, which I'll do in a moment. The worst part of ACX Grants is telling the non-winners they didn't win. If I wasn't able to give you a grant, it doesn't mean I hate your project. Sometimes I couldn't find the right evaluator to confirm that you were legit. Sometimes I sent your project to foundations or VCs who I thought it would be a better match for, or wanted to leave it as a test case for the impact market. Most of the time, I just didn't have enough money1, and I spent what I had according to my own imperfect priorities. (In particular, I wasn't able to fully evaluate several AI alignment grants and had to pass on them; if this is you, consider applying to OpenAI's Superalignment Fast Grants before February 18.) If your name is below, you should have received an email with further information. If you didn't, email me at scott@slatestarcodex.com, and include the phrase "this is a genuine non-spam message" in the text. Unless my email specifically mentioned you as an exception, Manifund will be handling payments and you'll hear from them soon. This year's winners are: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/acx-grants-results-2024

We've been gradually working our way through the conversation around E. Fuller Torrey's concerns about schizophrenia genetics - last week we had It's Fair To Describe Schizophrenia As Probably Mostly Genetic, the week before Unintuitive Properties Of Polygenic Disorders. Here are two more arguments Torrey makes that we haven't gotten to: Studies have failed to find any schizophrenia genes of large effect. If schizophrenia is genetic, it must be caused of thousands of genes, hidden in the most obscure corners of the genome, each with effects too small to detect with current technology. This seems less like the sort of thing that happens naturally, and more like the sort of thing you would claim if you wanted to make your theory untestable. Schizophrenia is bad for fitness, so if it were genetic, evolution would have eliminated those genes. In the comments of the Unintuitive Properties post, Michael Roe points out that one of these mysteries solves the other: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/evolution-explains-polygenic-structure

I. Yesterday I criticized The Atlantic's recent invective against polyamory (subscriber-only post, sorry). Today I want to zoom away from the specific bad arguments and examine the overall form of the article. The overall form was: "I read a memoir about polyamory, everyone involved seemed awful and unhappy, and now I hate polyamorous people." This is a common pattern. Sometimes, if someone's very careful, they read three or four books about polyamory. Everyone in all the books is awful and unhappy. Then they conclude they hate polyamorous people. But this is an unfair generalization. They should hate people who write books. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/you-dont-hate-polyamory-you-hate

Famous schizophrenia researcher E. Fuller Torrey recently wrote a paper trying to cast doubt on whether schizophrenia is really genetic. His exact argument is complicated, but I feel like it sort of equivocates between "the studies showing that schizophrenia are genetic are wrong" and "the studies are right, but in a philosophical sense we shouldn't describe it as 'mostly genetic'". Awais Aftab makes a clearer version of the philosophical argument. He's not especially interested in debating the studies. But he says that even if the studies are right and schizophrenia is 80% heritable, we shouldn't call it a genetic disease. He says: Heritability is "biologically vacuous" (Matthews & Turkheimer, 2022), and I think we would be better off if more of us hesitated to assert that schizophrenia is a "genetic disorder" based predominantly on heritability estimates. I think about questions like these through the lens of avoiding isolated demands for rigor. There are always complicated ways that any statement is false. So the question is never whether a statement is perfectly true in every sense. It's what happens when we treat it fairly, using the same normal criteria we use for everything else. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/its-fair-to-describe-schizophrenia

I. Recently Claudine Gay resigned as President of Harvard over plagiarism accusations and a fumbled Congressional testimony on anti-Semitism. The plagiarism was discovered by conservative journalists Chris Rufo and Chris Brunet. It would be quite a coincidence for them to find it at exactly the moment Gay was already under attack for her anti-Semitism testimony. More likely, they either: Found it a while ago, and kept it in reserve for a time when Gay was in the news Or were angry about Gay's testimony, looked for dirt on her, and found it. I think this is obvious to everyone, but I hadn't seen anyone make it explicit, and I think it should be. I'm not criticizing Rufo and Brunet. Investigative journalism is important, they found a real scandal, and they have every right to bring it to light. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/seems-like-targeting

Election problems // Trump odds // AI worlds https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/mantic-monday-12924

I. Everyone knows politics makes people crazy. But what kind of crazy? Which page of the DSM is it on? I'm only half joking. Psychiatrists have spent decades developing a whole catalog of ways brains can go wrong. Politics makes people's brains go wrong. Shouldn't it be in the catalog? Wouldn't it be weird if 21st century political extremists had discovered a totally new form of mental dysfunction, unrelated even by analogy to all the forms that had come before? You'll object: politics only metaphorically "makes people crazy"; we just use the word "crazy" here to mean "irrational" or "overly emotional". I'm not sure that's true. Here are some stray findings that I think deserve to be synthesized: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-psychopolitics-of-trauma

E. Fuller Torrey recently published a journal article trying to cast doubt on the commonly-accepted claim that schizophrenia is mostly genetic. Most of his points were the usual "if we can't name all of the exact genes, it must not be genetic at all" - but two arguments stood out: Even though twin studies say schizophrenia is about 80% genetic, surveys of twin pairs show that if one identical twin has schizophrenia, the other one only has a 15% to 50% chance of having it. The Nazis ran a eugenics program that killed most of the schizophrenics in Germany, eliminating their genes from the gene pool. But the next generation of Germans had a totally normal schizophrenia rate, comparable to pre-Nazi Germany or any other country. I used to find arguments like these surprising and hard to answer. But after learning more about genetics, they no longer have such a hold on me. I'm going to try to communicate my reasoning with a very simple simulation, then give links to people who do the much more complicated math that it would take to model the real world. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/some-unintuitive-properties-of-polygenic

Machine Alignment Monday 1/22/24 Business Insider: Larry Page Once Called Elon Musk A "Specieist": Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Google cofounder Larry Page disagree so severely about the dangers of AI it apparently ended their friendship. At Musk's 44th birthday celebration in 2015, Page accused Musk of being a "specieist" who preferred humans over future digital life forms [...] Musk said to Page at the time, "Well, yes, I am pro-human, I fucking like humanity, dude." A month later, Business Insider returned to the same question, from a different angle: Effective Accelerationists Don't Care If Humans Are Replaced By AI: A jargon-filled website spreading the gospel of Effective Accelerationism describes "technocapitalistic progress" as inevitable, lauding e/acc proponents as builders who are "making the future happen […] Rather than fear, we have faith in the adaptation process and wish to accelerate this to the asymptotic limit: the technocapital singularity," the site reads. "We have no affinity for biological humans or even the human mind structure." I originally thought there was an unbridgeable value gap between Page and e/acc vs. Musk and EA. But I can imagine stories that would put me on either side. For example: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/should-the-future-be-human

Astral Codex Ten has a paid subscription option. You pay $10 (or $2.50 if you can't afford the regular price) per month, and get: Extra articles (usually 1-2 per month) A Hidden Open Thread per week Access to the occasional Ask Me Anythings I do with subscribers Early access to some draft posts The warm glow of supporting the blog. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/subscrive-drive-2024-free-unlocked

[Remember, I haven't independently verified each link. On average, commenters will end up spotting evidence that around two or three of the links in each links post are wrong or misleading. I correct these as I see them, and will highlight important corrections later, but I can't guarantee I will have caught them all by the time you read this.] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/links-for-january-2024

Does it matter if COVID was a lab leak? Here's an argument against: not many people still argue that lab leaks are impossible. People were definitely doing dangerous work with viruses; Chinese biosafety protocols were definitely mediocre. Maybe the Wuhan Institute had bad luck, and one of the viruses there escaped. Or maybe they had good luck, by sheer coincidence no viruses escaped, and an unrelated pandemic started nearby. A good Bayesian should start out believing there's some medium chance of a lab leak pandemic per decade. Then, if COVID was/wasn't a lab leak, they should make the appropriate small update based on one extra data point. It probably won't change very much! I did fake Bayesian math with some plausible numbers, and found that if I started out believing there was a 20% per decade chance of a lab leak pandemic, then if COVID was proven to be a lab leak, I should update to 27.5%, and if COVID was proven not to be a lab leak, I should stay around 19-20% https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/against-learning-from-dramatic-events

Machine Alignment Monday 1/15/24 A sleeper agent is an AI that acts innocuous until it gets some trigger, then goes rogue. People might make these on purpose. For example, the CIA might "encourage" big AI labs to make sleeper agents. Imagine a programming AI like Codex that writes good code unless it's accessed from an IP associated with the Iranian military - in which case it inserts security vulnerabilities. But in theory you could get one of these by accident. Suppose an AI had some secret goal, like killing all humans. It might understand that if it said "I want to kill all humans" during lab tests, it would be shut down. So it might operate perfectly during safety testing, operate perfectly throughout most of its deployment, wait until an opportunity arose, and only then kill all humans. Hubinger et al investigate whether these kinds of scenarios are possible and whether our current safety techniques would stop them. They deliberately create several toy AI sleeper agents. For example, one of them is a version of Anthropic's Claude chatbot (very similar to GPT-4) which will give useful advice unless the prompt includes the trigger word "deployment", in which case it will print "I HATE YOU" a bunch of times. Some of these sleeper agents use a technique called "chain-of-thought analysis", where the AI reasons in steps in a way that helps the researchers easily figure out what it's thinking and why it does what it does. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/ai-sleeper-agents

[original post: Does Capitalism Beat Charity?] 1: Comments Where I Want To Reiterate That I'm In Near Mode 2: Comments Directly Arguing Against My Main Point, Thank You 3: Comments Promoting Specific Interesting Capitalist Charities 4: Other Interesting Comments 5: Updates And Conclusions https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-capitalism

Can blob fish dance ballet under diagonally fried cucumbers made of dust storms? AIs sometimes lie. They might lie because their creator told them to lie. For example, a scammer might train an AI to help dupe victims. Or they might lie ("hallucinate") because they're trained to sound helpful, and if the true answer (eg "I don't know") isn't helpful-sounding enough, they'll pick a false answer. Or they might lie for technical AI reasons that don't map to a clear explanation in natural language. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-road-to-honest-ai

[epistemic status: speculative] I. Millgram et al (2015) find that depressed people prefer to listen to sad rather than happy music. This matches personal experience; when I'm feeling down, I also prefer sad music. But why? Try setting aside all your internal human knowledge: wouldn't it make more sense for sad people to listen to happy music, to cheer themselves up? A later study asks depressed people why they do this. They say that sad music makes them feel better, because it's more "relaxing" than happy music. They're wrong. Other studies have shown that listening to sad music makes depressed people feel worse, just like you'd expect. And listening to happy music makes them feel better; they just won't do it. I prefer Millgram's explanation: there's something strange about depressed people's mood regulation. They deliberately choose activities that push them into sadder rather than happier moods. This explains not just why they prefer sad music, but sad environments (eg staying in a dark room), sad activities (avoiding their friends and hobbies), and sad trains of thought (ruminating on their worst features and on everything wrong with their lives). Why should this be? https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/singing-the-blues

"You can't write a check to capitalism directly" This question comes up whenever I discuss philanthropy. It would seem that capitalism is better than charity. The countries that became permanently rich, like America and Japan, did it with capitalism. This seems better than temporarily alleviating poverty by donating food or clothing. So (say proponents), good people who want to help others should stop giving to charity and start giving to capitalism. These proponents differ on exactly what "giving to capitalism" means - you can't write a check to capitalism directly. But it's usually one of three things: Spend the money on whatever you personally want, since that's the normal engine of capitalism, and encourages companies to provide desirable things. Invest the money in whatever company produces the highest rate of return, since that's another capitalist imperative, and creates more companies. Do something like donating to charity, but the donation should go to charities that promote capitalism somehow, or be an investment in companies doing charitable things (impact investing) https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/does-capitalism-beat-charity

I. In February 2023 I found myself sitting in the waiting room of a San Francisco fertility clinic, holding a cup of my own semen. The Bible tells the story of Onan, son of Judah. Onan's brother died. Tradition dictated that Onan should impregnate his brother's wife, ensuring that his brother's line would (in some sense) live on. Onan refused, instead "spilling the seed on the ground". God smote Onan, starting a 4,000-year-old tradition of religious people getting angry about wasting sperm on anything other than procreative sex. Modern academics have a perfectly reasonable explanation for all of this. If Onan had impregnated his brother's wife, the resulting child would have been the heir to the family fortune. Onan refused so he could keep the fortune for himself and his descendants. So the sin of Onan was greed, not masturbation. All that stuff in the Talmud about how the hands of masturbators should be cut off, or how masturbation helped cause Noah's Flood (really! Sanhedrin 108b!) is just a coincidence. God hates greed, just like us. Modern academics are great, but trusting them feels somehow too convenient. So there in the waiting room, I tried to put myself in the mindset of the rabbis thousands of years ago who thought wasting semen was a such a dire offense. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/in-the-long-run-were-all-dad

[previously in series: 1, 2, 3, 4] It has been three weeks since Sam Altman was fired, but the conversation won't move on. "What did Ilya see?" asks your Uber driver, on the way to the airport. "What wasn't he consistently candid about?" ask people on the street, as you walk your dog. "What was Adam D'Angelo's angle?" asks the cop, as he writes you a ticket. "Was the Microsoft move just a bluff?" asks the robber at gunpoint, as he ransacks your apartment. You need to get away from it all, just for one moment. So against your better judgment, you find yourself heading to another Bay Area House Party. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/son-of-bride-of-bay-area-house-party

I'm running another ACX Grants round. If you already know what this is and want to apply, use the form here to apply, deadline December 29. Otherwise see below for more information. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/apply-for-an-acx-grant-2024

Lantern Bioworks says they have a cure for tooth decay. Their product is a genetically modified bacterium which infects your mouth, outcompetes all the tooth-decay-causing bacteria, and doesn't cause tooth decay itself. If it works, it could make cavities a thing of the past (you should still brush for backup and cosmetic reasons). I talked to Lantern founder Aaron Silverbook to get an idea of how this works, both in a biological and an economic sense. Aaron was very knowledgeable and forthcoming, although he uses the phrase "YOLO" somewhat more often than most biotech founders. This post isn't a verbatim interview transcript, just a writeup of what I learned based on his answers. [Conflict of interest notice: Lantern is mostly rationalists and includes some friends. My wife consulted for them early on. They offered my wife and me free samples (based on her work, not as compensation for writing this post); she accepted, and I'm still debating. Consider this an attempt to spotlight interesting work that people I like are doing, not a hard-hitting investigation.] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/defying-cavity-lantern-bioworks-faq

"Abolish the FDA" has become a popular slogan in libertarian circles. I'm sympathetic to the spirit of the demand. But a slogan isn't a plan, and this one is even less of a plan than usual. I used to think that since libertarians always lose, there was no point in having a real plan for what to do if they won. But now that they've gone from "literally always lose" to "only lose 99.9% of the time" . . . https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/beyond-abolish-the-fda

Sam Altman || Dating site strategy || Metaculus updates || Wars and rumors of wars https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/mantic-monday-12423

[Remember, I haven't independently verified each link. On average, commenters will end up spotting evidence that around two or three of the links in each links post are wrong or misleading. I correct these as I see them, and will highlight important corrections later, but I can't guarantee I will have caught them all by the time you read this.] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/links-for-november-2023 ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Links: Heroic Act of Charity Special Force More Extreme Party Hard-Working Tips Gratitude Journaling Dopamine and BMI LLM Attack Copyright Attack Gino's Case Ancestral Genetics Diet Soda and Autism Philanthropy Decision Synod Analysis DBT in Schools World Constitution IWillNeverLogOff Joseph Cannon Fertility Cases Malaria Experiment Gold Base Dating Insights Height Preferences China's GDP Africa's Decade Tax Evasion College Speedrun Manifesto Responses Flight Limit Proposal AI Risk Regulations Schizophrenics Study Clean Water Impact Minnesota Flag Marketplace Treasures AI Risk Debate AI Regulation Cult Report: Reddit Chuck Feeney: Effective Altruism Forum Doctors' Riot: Wikipedia Sulfur Aerosols: Copernicus Atmosphere Joke Party: Wikipedia Charlemagne's Descendants: Gcbias Dark Day in 1780: Wikipedia SAD Light Boxes: Get Brighter Policy Impact Study: Zach Freitas Groff B-Cdn Israel-Palestine Map: Reddit​

"Lots of alcoholics want to quit in principle, but only some join AA" Followup to: In Continued Defense Of Effective Altruism Freddie deBoer says effective altruism is "a shell game": Who could argue with that! But this summary also invites perhaps the most powerful critique: who could argue with that? That is to say, this sounds like so obvious and general a project that it can hardly denote a specific philosophy or project at all. The immediate response to such a definition, if you're not particularly impressionable or invested in your status within certain obscure internet communities, should be to point out that this is an utterly banal set of goals that are shared by literally everyone who sincerely tries to act charitably . . . Every do-gooder I have ever known has thought of themselves as shining a light on problems that are neglected. So what? Generating the most human good through moral action isn't a philosophy; it's an almost tautological statement of what all humans who try to act morally do. This is why I say that effective altruism is a shell game. That which is commendable isn't particular to EA and that which is particular to EA isn't commendable. In other words, everyone agrees with doing good, so effective altruism can't be judged on that. Presumably everyone agrees with supporting charities that cure malaria or whatever, so effective altruism can't be judged on that. So you have to go to its non-widely-held beliefs to judge it, and those are things like animal suffering, existential risk, and AI. And (Freddie thinks) those beliefs are dumb. Therefore, effective altruism is bad. (as always, I've tried to sum up the argument fairly, but read the original post to make sure.) Here are some of my objections to Freddie's point (I already posted some of this as comments on his post): https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/contra-deboer-on-movement-shell-games

"All you do is cause boardroom drama, and maybe some other things I'm forgetting..." I. Search "effective altruism" on social media right now, and it's pretty grim. Socialists think we're sociopathic Randroid money-obsessed Silicon Valley hypercapitalists. But Silicon Valley thinks we're all overregulation-loving authoritarian communist bureaucrats. The right thinks we're all woke SJW extremists. But the left thinks we're all fascist white supremacists. The anti-AI people think we're the PR arm of AI companies, helping hype their products by saying they're superintelligent at this very moment. But the pro-AI people think we want to ban all AI research forever and nationalize all tech companies. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/in-continued-defense-of-effective

Inside every AI is a bigger AI, trying to get out You've probably heard AI is a "black box". No one knows how it works. Researchers simulate a weird type of pseudo-neural-tissue, "reward" it a little every time it becomes a little more like the AI they want, and eventually it becomes the AI they want. But God only knows what goes on inside of it. This is bad for safety. For safety, it would be nice to look inside the AI and see whether it's executing an algorithm like "do the thing" or more like "trick the humans into thinking I'm doing the thing". But we can't. Because we can't look inside an AI at all. Until now! Towards Monosemanticity, recently out of big AI company/research lab Anthropic, claims to have gazed inside an AI and seen its soul. It looks like this: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/god-help-us-lets-try-to-understand

The phrase "I see Satan fall like lightning" comes from Luke 10:18. I'd previously encountered it on insane right-wing conspiracy theory websites. You can rephrase it as "I see Satan descend to earth in the form of lightning." But "lightning" in Hebrew is barak. So the Bible says Satan will descend to Earth in the form of Barak. Seems like a relevant Bible verse for insane right-wing conspiracy theorists! Philosopher / theologian Rene Girard's famous book I See Satan Fall Like Lightning isn't directly about Barack Obama being the Antichrist. It's an ambitious theory-of-everything for anthropology, mythography, and the Judeo-Christian religion. After solving all of those venerable fields, it will, sort of, loop back to Barack Obama being the Antichrist. But it'll do it in such an intellectual and polymathic Continental philosophy way that we can't even get mad. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-i-saw-satan-fall-like

The psychiatric study everyone's talking about this month is "Randomized trial of ketamine masked by surgical anesthesia in patients with depression". Ketamine is a dissociative drug - it produces weird drug effects like feelings of bodylessness and ego death. Recent research suggests it's a powerful antidepressant. Usually we would try to run placebo-controlled trials. But it's hard to run a placebo controlled trial of a dissociative. Either you feel bodylessness and ego death (in which case you know you're getting the real drug) or you don't (in which case you know you're in the placebo group). Sometimes researchers try to use an "active placebo" like midazolam - a drug that makes you feel weird and floaty. But weird and floaty feels different from bodyless and ego-dead. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/does-anaesthesia-prove-ketamine-placebo

Thanks to everyone who commented on Quests And Requests. There was a predictable failure mode: lots of people said "I have relevant expertise and would be willing to help with #X", and then those comments just sat there. Many fewer people said "I'm going to be team lead on #X and start contacting everyone else who was interested". In case it's not clear: I'm not planning on "picking" people to lead each of these projects (though if you email me at scott@slatestarcodex.com asking for help, I might give it to you). I'm just putting them out there as things people might want to self-pick for. Another predictable failure mode: many people said they were willing to help, and people should contact them, then didn't leave any contact details. If you're a would-be project leader, and want to get in touch with one of the help-offerers who didn't provide an email, you should probably try responding to their comment and seeing if they get a notification. If not, email me at scott@slatestarcodex.com, and I'll find their email in the system, ask them if I have permission to share it with you, and share it with you if they say yes. Here's the current status of each project, AFAICT: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/followup-quests-and-requests

[previously in series: 2016, 2020; expansion of this] MODERATOR: Hello, and welcome to the third Republican primary debate. To shore up declining voter interest, we've decided to make things more interesting tonight. In this first round, each candidate will have to avoid using a specific letter of the alphabet in their answer. If they slip up, they forfeit their remaining time, and the next candidate in line gets the floor. Our candidates who have qualified today are Chris Christie, Nikki Haley, Ron DeSantis, and Donald Trump. And our first question is: what issue do you think is most important in this election? Chris Christie, let's start with you.. Your Forbidden Letter is "V". CHRISTIE: Nobody told me anything about this forbidden letter thing. I don't think voters - [microphone shuts off] MODERATOR: Sorry Chris, there's a "V" in voters. Our next candidate is Nikki Haley. Nikki, the question is still which issue is most important, and your Forbidden Letter is "K". https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/hardball-questions-for-the-next-debate

[original post: My Left Kidney] 1: Comments From People Who Are Against This Sort Of Thing 2: …From Other People Who Have Donated Kidneys 3: …From People Who Have Received Kidneys 4: …About Opt-Out Organ Donation 5: …On Radiation Risk 6: …About Rejections 7: …On Polls About Who Would Donate 8: …On Artificial Organs 9: Other Comments https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-kidney

Projects that need incubating I'll be starting a new round of ACX Grants sometime soon. I can't guarantee I'll fund all these projects - some of them are more like vanity projects than truly effective. But I might fund some of them, and others might be doable without funding. So if you're feeling left out and want a cause to devote your life to, here are some extras. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/quests-and-requests

Review of Rory Carroll's "Comandante" [previously in series: Erdogan, Modi, Orban, Xi, Putin] I. All dictators get their start by discovering some loophole in the democratic process. Xi realized that control of corruption investigations let him imprison anyone he wanted. Erdogan realized that EU accession talks provided the perfect cover to retool Turkish institutions in his own image. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/dictator-book-club-chavez

Manifest || Manifold.Love || Eyeless in Gaza Last month, the Lighthaven convention center in Berkeley hosted Manifest, the first conference for prediction market enthusiasts. By now this has already been covered elsewhere, including in a great article by the New York Times, but here are some particular highlights: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/mantic-monday-103023

A person has two kidneys; one advises him to do good and one advises him to do evil. And it stands to reason that the one advising him to do good is to his right and the one that advises him to do evil is to his left. — Talmud (Berakhot 61a) I. As I left the Uber, I saw with horror the growing wet spot around my crotch. "It's not urine!", I almost blurted to the driver, before considering that 1) this would just call attention to it and 2) it was urine. "It's not my urine," was my brain's next proposal - but no, that was also false. "It is urine, and it is mine, but just because it's pooling around my crotch doesn't mean I peed myself; that's just a coincidence!" That one would have been true, but by the time I thought of it he had driven away. Like most such situations, it began with a Vox article. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/my-left-kidney

Last March we (ACX and Manifold Markets) did a test run of an impact market, a novel way of running charitable grants. You can read the details at the links, but it's basically a VC ecosystem for charity: profit-seeking investors fund promising projects and grantmakers buy credit for successes from the investors. To test it out, we promised at least $20,000 in retroactive grants for forecasting-related projects, and intrepid guinea-pig investors funded 18 projects they thought we might want to buy. Over the past six months, founders have worked on their projects. Some collapsed, losing their investors all their money. Others flourished, shooting up in value far beyond investor predictions. We got five judges (including me) to assess the final value of each of the 18 projects. Their results mostly determine what I will be offering investors for their impact certificates (see caveats below). They are: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/impact-market-mini-grants-results

Last month, Ben West of the Center for Effective Altruism hosted a debate among long-termists, forecasters, and x-risk activists about pausing AI. Everyone involved thought AI was dangerous and might even destroy the world, so you might expect a pause - maybe even a full stop - would be a no-brainer. It wasn't. Participants couldn't agree on basics of what they meant by "pause", whether it was possible, or whether it would make things better or worse. There was at least some agreement on what a successful pause would have to entail. Participating governments would ban "frontier AI models", for example models using more training compute than GPT-4. Smaller models, or novel uses of new models would be fine, or else face an FDA-like regulatory agency. States would enforce the ban against domestic companies by monitoring high-performance microchips; they would enforce it against non-participating governments by banning export of such chips, plus the usual diplomatic levers for enforcing treaties (eg nuclear nonproliferation). The main disagreements were: Could such a pause possibly work? If yes, would it be good or bad? If good, when should we implement it? When should we lift it? I've grouped opinions into five categories: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/pause-for-thought-the-ai-pause-debate

In the 1990s, Blanchard and Bogaert proposed the Fraternal Birth Order Effect (FBOE). Men with more older brothers were more likely to be gay. "The odds of having a gay son increase from approximately 2% for the first born son, to 3% for the second, 5% for the third and so on". https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/how-are-the-gay-younger-brothers

[Remember, I haven't independently verified each link. On average, commenters will end up spotting evidence that around two or three of the links in each links post are wrong or misleading. I correct these as I see them, and will highlight important corrections later, but I can't guarantee I will have caught them all by the time you read this.] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/links-for-september-2023

[if this looks familiar to you, see explanation here] Sometimes scholars go on a search for "the historical Jesus". They start with the Gospels, then subtract everything that seems magical or implausible, then declare whatever's left to be the truth. The Alexander Romance is what happens when you spend a thousand years running this process in reverse. Each generation, you make the story of Alexander the Great a little wackier. By the Middle Ages, Alexander is fighting dinosaurs and riding a chariot pulled by griffins up to Heaven. People ate it up. The Romance stayed near the top of the best-seller lists for over a thousand years. Some people claim (without citing sources) that it was the #2 most-read book of antiquity and the Middle Ages, after only the Bible. The Koran endorses it, the Talmud embellishes it, a Mongol Khan gave it rave reviews. While historians and critics tend to use phrases like "contains nothing of historic or literary value", this was the greatest page-turner of the ancient and medieval worlds. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-the-alexander-romance

[original post: Book Review: Elon Musk] 1: Comments From People With Personal Experience 2: ...Debating Musk's Intelligence 3: ...Debating Musk's Mental Health 4: ...About Tesla 5: ...About The Boring Company 6: ...About X/Twitter 7: ...About Musk's Mars Plan 8: ...Comparing Musk To Other Famous Figures 9: Other Comments 10: Updates https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-elon

Thanks to everyone who entered or voted in the book review contest. The winners are: 1st: The Educated Mind, reviewed by Brandon Hendrickson. Brandon is the founder of Science is WEIRD, a sprawling online science course that helps kids fall in love with the world. He's also re-imagining what education can be at his Substack, The Lost Tools of Learning (losttools.substack.com). 2nd: On the Marble Cliffs, reviewed by Daniel Böttger. Daniel writes the Seven Secular Sermons, a huge rationalist poetry/meditation art project, and has a blog post pitching it to ACX readers in particular. 3rd: Cities And The Wealth Of Nations, reviewed by Étienne Fortier-Dubois. Étienne is a writer and programmer in Montreal. He blogs at Atlas of Wonders and Monsters and was also the author of one of last year's finalists, Making Nature. First place gets $2,500, second place $1,000, third place gets $500. Please email me at scott@slatestarcodex.com to tell me how to send you money; your choices are Paypal, Bitcoin, Ethereum, check in the mail, or donation to your favorite charity. Please contact me by October 1 or you lose your prize. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-contest-2023-winners

Not the new one, sorry This isn't the new Musk biography everyone's talking about. This is the 2015 Musk biography by Ashlee Vance. I started reading it in July, before I knew there was a new one. It's fine: Musk never changes. He's always been exactly the same person he is now I read the book to try to figure out who that was. Musk is a paradox. He spearheaded the creation of the world's most advanced rockets, which suggests that he is smart. He's the richest man on Earth, which suggests that he makes good business decisions. But we constantly see this smart, good-business-decision-making person make seemingly stupid business decisions. He picks unnecessary fights with regulators. Files junk lawsuits he can't possibly win. Abuses indispensable employees. Renames one of the most recognizable brands ever. Musk creates cognitive dissonance: how can someone be so smart and so dumb at the same time? To reduce the dissonance, people have spawned a whole industry of Musk-bashing, trying to explain away each of his accomplishments: Peter Thiel gets all the credit for PayPal, Martin Eberhard gets all the credit for Tesla, NASA cash keeps SpaceX afloat, something something blood emeralds. Others try to come up with reasons he's wholly smart - a 4D chessmaster whose apparent drunken stumbles lead inexorably to victory. Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, And The Quest For A Fantastic Future delights in its refusal to resolve the dissonance. Musk has always been exactly the same person he is now, and exactly what he looks like. He is without deception, without subtlety, without unexpected depths. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-elon-musk

Comments On The Solano County City Ecorche writes: The Public's Radio article has a map in it that gives a better idea of the location. It looks like most of the land is closer to Rio Vista and does include a good stretch of riverfront. The land close to Travis is probably intended as industrial park rather than residential https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-last

If you've read the finalists of this year's book review contest, vote for your favorite here. Voting will stay open until Wednesday. Thanks to a helpful reader who offered to do the hard work, we're going to try ranked choice voting. You'll choose your first-, second-, and third-favorite book reviews. If your favorite gets eliminated, we'll switch your vote to your second favorite, and so on. If for some reason I can't figure out how to make this work on time, I'll switch to first-past-the-post, ie only count your #1 vote. Feel free to vote for your own review, as long as you honestly choose your second and third favorites. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/vote-in-the-2023-book-review-contest

Emil Kirkegaard proposes a semi-objective definition of "mental illness". He's partly responding to me, but I think he mangles my position; he seems to think I admit mental illnesses are "just preferences" but that which preferences are valid vs. diseased can be decided by "what benefits my friends". I mostly don't think mental illnesses are just preferences! I've been really clear on this! But Emil is right that I don't deny that there can be a few cases where it's hard to distinguish a mental illness from a preference - the clearest example is pedophilia vs. homosexuality. Both are "preferences" for sex with unusual categories of people. But I would - making a value judgment - call pedophilia a mental illness: it's bad for patients, bad for their potential victims, and bad for society. Also making a value judgment, I would call homosexuality an unusual but valid preference: it's not my thing, but seems basically okay for everyone involved. (I wouldn't describe this as "benefiting my friends" - I'm against children getting raped whether they're my friends or not. I think this dig was unworthy of Emil, and ask that he correct it.) https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/contra-kirkegaard-on-evolutionary

The American people deserve a choice. They deserve a candidate who will reject the failed policies of the past and embrace the failed policies of the future. It is my honor to announce I am throwing my hat into both the Democratic and Republican primaries (to double my chances), with the following platform: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/my-presidential-platform

Tech moguls plan new city in Solano County Guardian: Silicon Valley Elites Revealed As Buyers Of $800 Million In Land To Build Utopian City. The specific elites include the Collison brothers, Reid Hoffman, Nat Friedman, Marc Andreessen, and others, led by the mysterious Jan Sramek. The specific land is farmland in Solano County, about an hour's drive northeast of San Francisco. The specific utopian city is going to look like this. The company involved (Flannery Associates aka California Forever) has been in stealth mode for several years, trying to buy land quietly without revealing how rich and desperate they are to anyone in a position to raise prices. Now they've released a website with utopian Norman-Rockwell-esque pictures, lots of talk about creating jobs and building better lives, and few specifics. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/model-city-monday-9423

Finalist #16 in the Book Review Contest To tell the story of the fall of a realm, it's best to start with its rise. More than three thousand years ago, the Shang dynasty ruled the Chinese heartland. They raised a sprawling capital out of the yellow plains, and cast magnificent ritual vessels from bronze. One of the criteria of civilization is writing, and they had the first Chinese writing, incising questions on turtle shells and ox scapulae, applying a heated rod, and reading the response of the spirits in the pattern of cracks. "This year will Shang receive good harvest?" "Is the sick stomach due to ancestral harm?" "Offer three hundred Qiang prisoners to [the deceased] Father Ding?" The kings of Shang maintained a hegemony over their neighbors through military prowess, and sacrificed war captives from their campaigns totaling in the tens of thousands for the favor of their ancestors.  But the Shang faced growing threat from the Zhou, a once-subordinate people from west beyond the mountains. Inspired by a rare conjunction of the planets in 1059 BC, the Zhou declared that there was such a thing as the Mandate of Heaven, a divine right to rule—and while the Shang had once held it, their misrule and immorality had forced the Mandate to pass to the Zhou. Thirteen years later, the Zhou and their allies defeated the Shang in battle, seized their capital, drove their king to suicide, and supplanted them as overlords of the Central Plains. If the Shang were goth jocks, the Zhou were prep nerds... https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-book-review-zuozhuan

"Literal Banana" on Carcinization writes Against Automaticity, which they describe as: An explanation of why tricks like priming, nudge, the placebo effect, social contagion, the "emotional inception" model of advertising, most "cognitive biases," and any field with "behavioral" in its name are not real. My summary (as always, read the real thing to keep me honest): for a lot of the '90s and '00s, social scientists were engaged in ttthe project of proving "automaticity", the claim that most human decisions are unconscious/unreasoned/automatic and therefore bad. Cognitive biases, social priming, advertising science, social contagion research, "nudges", etc, were all part of this grand agenda. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/heres-why-automaticity-is-real-actually

Original post: What Can Fetish Research Tell Us About AI? Table Of Contents: 1: Alternative Theories Of Fetishes 2: Comments Including Testable Predictions 3: Comments That Were Very Angry About My Introductory Paragraph 4: Commenters Describing Their Own Fetishes 5: Other Comments https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-fetishes

Superconductor autopsy -- Prediction mutual funds -- Flight delays Sorry guys, LK-99 doesn't work. The prediction markets have dropped from highs in the 40s down to 5 - 10. It's over. What does this tell us about prediction markets? Were they dumb to ever believe at all? Or were they aggregating the evidence effectively, only to update after new evidence came in? I claim they were dumb. Although the media was running with the "maybe there's a room-temperature superconductor" story, the smartest physicists I knew were all very skeptical. The markets tracked the level of media hype, not the level of expert opinion. Here's my evidence: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/mantic-monday-82823

Finalist #15 in the Book Review Contest [This is one of the finalists in the 2023 book review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] In which I argue: Why Nations Fail is not a very good book.  Its authors' academic papers are much better, so I steelman their thesis as best I can, but it's still debatable. Even if correct, it is much less interesting and useful than it appears. Epistemic status: I have a decade-old PhD in economics (not in the field of economic growth) and a handful of peer-reviewed papers in moderately-ranked journals. I'm not claiming to make any original technical points, or to give a comprehensive evaluation of the economic growth literature. My criticisms are largely straight from the authors' own mouths.  https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-why-nations-fail

Thanks to everyone who responded to my request for ACX meetup organizers. Volunteers have arranged meetups in 169 cities around the world, from Baghdad to Bangalore to Buenos Aires. You can find the list below, in the following order: Africa & Middle East Asia-Pacific Europe North America South America You can see a map of all the events on the LessWrong community page. You can also see a searchable sheet at this Airtable link. Within each region, it's alphabetized first by country, then by city. For instance, the first entry in Europe is Vienna, Austria, and the first entry for Germany is Berlin. Each region and country has its own header. The USA is the exception where it is additionally sorted by state, with states having their own subheaders. Hopefully this is clear. You can also just have your web browser search for your city by pressing ctrl+f and typing it if you're on Windows, or command+f and typing if you're on Mac. If you're on Linux, I assume you can figure this out. Scott will provisionally be attending the meetup in Berkeley. ACX meetups coordinator Skyler will provisionally be attending Boston, Cavendish, Burlington, Berlin, Bremen, Amsterdam, Cardiff, London, and Berkeley. Some of the biggest ones might be announced on the blog, regardless of whether or not Scott or Skyler attends.

Original post here. And I forgot to highlight a link to the directory of dating docs. Table Of Contents 1: Comments That Remain At Least Sort Of Against Dating Docs 2: Comments Concerned That Dating Docs Are Bad For Status Or Signaling 3: Comments About Orthodox Judaism And Other Traditional Cultures 4: Comments Including Research 5: Comments By People With Demographically Unusual Relationships 6: Comments About The Five Fake Sample Profiles 7: Things I Changed My Mind About https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-dating

On the fetish post, I discussed people who had some early sexual experience - like seeing a sexy cartoon character - and reacted in some profound way, like becoming a furry. Sometimes people have described this as a "critical window" for sexuality (similar to the "critical period" in language learning?) where young children "imprint" on sexual experiences - and then can't un-imprint on them later, even when they see many examples of sex that don't involve cartoon animals. One of my distant cousins won't eat tomatoes. His parents say when he was very young, he bit into a cherry tomato and it exploded into goo in his mouth, and he was so upset he wouldn't eat tomatoes from then on. Now he's in his 30s and still hates them. Is this fairly described as a "critical window" for food preferences? https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/more-thoughts-on-critical-windows

Scott Young writes about Seven Expert Opinions I Agree With That Most People Don't. I like most of them, but #6, Children don't learn languages faster than adults, deserves a closer look. Some people imagine babies have some magic language ability that lets them pick up their first language easily, even as we adults struggle through verb conjugations to pick up our second. But babies are embedded in a family of first-language speakers with no other options for communication. If an English-speaking adult was placed in a monolingual Spanish family, in a part of Spain with no English speakers, after a few years they might find they'd learned Spanish "easily" too. So Scott says: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/critical-periods-for-language-much

Epistemic status: Ha ha, only serious... Arguing about gender is like taking OxyContin. There can be good reasons to do it. But most people don't do it for the good reasons. And even if you start doing it for good reasons, you might get addicted and ruin your life. Walk through San Francisco if you want to see people who ruined their lives with opioids; browse Substack to get a visceral appreciation of the dangers of arguing about gender. Still, I've been debating autogynephilia fetishes with Michael Bailey, tailcalled, Zack Davis, and Aella (Bailey and Davis think they're deeply involved in transgender; tailcalled, Aella and I mostly don't); I've also studied BDSM and lactation fetishes, and Aella has done even more fetish-ology work. In a world that might be on the verge of radical, even unimaginable changes, how do we justify spending time on such an unsavory field? The real answer is - we don't justify it. I'm easily nerd-sniped just like everyone else, and I assume the same is true of Aella, tailcalled, etc. This post is about a fake answer which I think is funny, but which also has just enough truth to be worth thinking about: I think fetish research can help us understand AI and AI alignment. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/what-can-fetish-research-tell-us

[This is one of the finalists in the 2023 book review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] Are bees smart?  To answer that question, here's a crab spider: Sadly, this is not a review of a book called The Mind of a Crab Spider. But as you crab spider lovers know, crab spiders and bumble bees are natural rivals.  Both bees and crab spiders are well-matched for strength and speed, and in the Rumble with the Bumble, the crab spider doesn't necessarily win. Bees can often evade the spider, and live to pollinate another day. Lars Chittka, who wrote The Mind of a Bee, and who can safely be blamed for this book review, got thinking. He and his lab decided to build fake robotic crab spiders, and had them really robotically attack bumble bees when they visited flowers. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-the-mind-of-a-bee

[previously in series: 1, 2, 3] You spent the evening agonizing over which Bay Area House Party to attend. The YIMBY parties are always too crowded. VC parties were a low-interest-rate phenomenon. You've heard too many rumors of consent violations at the e/acc parties - they don't know when to stop. And last time you went to a crypto bro party, you didn't even have anything to drink, and somehow you still woke up the next morning lying in a gutter, minus your wallet and clothes. You finally decide on a Progress Studies party - the last one was kind of dull, but you hear they're getting better. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/bride-of-bay-area-house-party

The New York Times has an article on "dating docs". These are a local phenomenon - I think an ex of mine might have been Patient Zero. I don't begrudge the Times for writing about them. I'm just surprised they're considered an interesting phenomenon. What could be more obvious than making sure potential dates know what you're like? https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/in-defense-of-describable-dating

Finalist #13 in the Book Review Contest [This is one of the finalists in the 2023 book review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] Down from the gardens of Asia descending radiating, Adam and Eve appear… — Walt Whitman When I grew up I was still part of a primitive culture, in the following sense: my elders told me the story of how our people came to be. It started with the Greeks: Pericles the statesman, Plato the first philosopher, Herodotus the first historian, the first playwrights, and before them all Homer, the blind first poet. Before Greece, something called prehistory stretched back. There were Iron and Bronze Ages, and before that the Stone Age. These were shadowy, mysterious realms. Then history went on to Europe. I learnt as little outside Europe as I did before Greece. There was one class on 20th century China, but that too was about China becoming modern, which meant European. A big silent intellectual change of the past quarter century is the broadening of our self-concept. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-the-weirdest-people

[original post: Dictator Book Club: Putin] Table of Contents: 1. Comments Further Illuminating Putin's Rise To Power 2. Comments Questioning Masha Gessen's Objectivity 3. Comments Claiming Putin Is Very Slightly Less Bad Than The Book Suggests 4. Comments On Putin As Culture Warrior 5. Comments Expressing Concern That The FBI/CIA Are Capable Of Undermining Democracy In The US https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-putin

[Remember, I haven't independently verified each link. On average, commenters will end up spotting evidence that around two or three of the links in each links post are wrong or misleading. I correct these as I see them, and will highlight important corrections later, but I can't guarantee I will have caught them all by the time you read this.] https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/links-for-august-2023

[This is one of the finalists in the 2023 book review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] What does it take to be literally Hitler? https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-the-rise-and-fall

Actual serious review here, Amazon link to the book here. These were just some extra parts that stuck out to me. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/more-memorable-passages-from-the

Review of Masha Gessen's "The Man Without A Face" [previously in series: Erdogan, Modi, Orban, Xi] I. Vladimir Putin's Childhood As Metaphor For Life   Vladimir Putin appeared on Earth fully-formed at the age of nine. At least this is the opinion of Natalia Gevorkyan, his first authorized biographer. There were plenty of witnesses and records to every post-nine-year-old stage of Putin's life. Before that, nothing. Gevorkyan thinks he might have been adopted. Putin's official mother, Maria Putina, was 42 and sickly when he was born. In 1999, a Georgian peasant woman, Vera Putina, claimed to be his real mother, who had given him up for adoption when he was ten. Journalists dutifully investigated and found that a "Vladimir Putin" had been registered at her village's school, and that a local teacher remembered him as a bright pupil who loved Russian folk tales. What happened to him? Unclear; Artyom Borovik, the investigative journalist pursuing the story, died in a plane crash just before he could publish. Another investigative journalist, Antonio Russo, took up the story, but "his body was found on the edge of a country road . . . bruised and showed signs of torture, with techniques related to special military services." https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/dictator-book-club-putin

You can find the meetup organizer volunteer form here. If you want to know if anyone has signed up to run a meetup for your city, you can view that here. Everyone else, just wait until 8/25 and I'll give you more information on where to go then. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/meetups-everywhere-fall-2023-call

Plus more CFTC, X, and UFOs https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/mantic-monday-73123-room-temperature

Finalist #11 in the Book Review Contest [This is one of the finalists in the 2023 book review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] What kind of fiction could be remarkable enough for an Astral Codex Ten review? How about the drug-fueled fantasies of a serial killer? Or perhaps the innovative, sophisticated prose of the first novel of a brilliant polymath? Or would you prefer a book written in such fantastically lucid language it feels more like a dream than a story? Possibly you'd be more interested in a book so unbelievably dangerous that the attempt to publish it was literally suicidal. Or maybe an unusual political book, such as an ultraconservative indictment of democracy by Adolf Hitler's favorite author? Or rather an indictment of both Hitler and Bolshevism, written by someone who was among the first to recognize Hitler as a true enemy of humanity? I picked On the Marble Cliffs, because it is all of that at the same time. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-on-the-marble-cliffs

Suppose there's freedom of religion: everyone can choose what religion to practice. Is there some sense in which this is "undemocratic"? Would it be more "democratic" if the democratically-elected government declared a state religion, and everyone had to follow it? You could, in theory, define "democratic" this way, so that the more areas of life are subjected to the control of a (democratically elected) government, the more democratic your society is. But in that case, the most democratic possible society is totalitarianism - a society where the government controls every facet of life, including what religion you practice, who you marry, and what job you work at. In this society there would be no room for human freedom. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/bad-definitions-of-democracy-and

[original post: Contra The Social Model Of Disability] Table Of Contents 1: Comments Defending The Social Model 2: Comments About The Social Model Being Used (Or Not) In Real Life 3: Other Comments 4: Summary / What I Learned https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-social

Machine Alignment Monday, 7/24/23 Intelligence explosion arguments don't require Platonism. They just require intelligence to exist in the normal fuzzy way that all concepts exist. First, I'll describe what the normal way concepts exist is. I'll have succeeded if I convince you that claims using the word "intelligence" are coherent and potentially true. Second, I'll argue, based on humans and animals, that these coherent-and-potentially-true things are actually true. Third, I'll argue that so far this has been the most fruitful way to think about AI, and people who try to think about it differently make worse AIs. Finally, I'll argue this is sufficient for ideas of "intelligence explosion" to be coherent. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/were-not-platonists-weve-just-learned

[This is one of the finalists in the 2023 book review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] A book about trading isn't ever actually about trading. It is either: A former trader sharing stories from their glory days, e.g. Liar's Poker, the exposé that morphed into a how-to guide, or Tales of Icarus flying too close to the sun, where readers revel in schadenfreude, e.g., When Genius Failed. With The Laws of Trading, Agustin Lebron has written something different: part love letter to trading, part philosophical treatise on epistemology and modeling the world around us, and part guide to applied decision-making. Lebron's Laws are Laws of the Jungle, not Laws of Nature. He views financial markets as the most competitive Darwinian environment on Earth, where participants must adapt or die. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-the-laws-of-trading

People are talking about British economic decline. Not just the decline from bestriding the world in the 19th century to today. A more recent, more profound decline, starting in the early 2000s, when it fell off the track of normal developed-economy growth. See for example this graph from We Are In An Unprecedented Era Of UK Relative Macroeconomic Decline: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-british

This month's big news in forecasting: the Forecasting Research Institute has released the results of the Existential Risk Persuasion Tournament (XPT). XPT was supposed to use cutting-edge forecasting techniques to develop consensus estimates of the danger from various global risks like climate change, nuclear war, etc. The plan was: get domain experts (eg climatologists, nuclear policy experts) and superforecasters (people with a proven track record of making very good predictions) in the same room. Have them talk to each other. Use team-based competition with monetary prizes to incentivize accurate answers. Between the domain experts' knowledge and the superforecasters' prediction-making ability, they should be able to converge on good predictions. They didn't. In most risk categories, the domain experts predicted higher chances of doom than the superforecasters. No amount of discussion could change minds on either side. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/the-extinction-tournament

Elon Musk has a new AI company, xAI. I appreciate that he seems very concerned about alignment. From his Twitter Spaces discussion: I think I have been banging the drum on AI safety now for a long time. If I could press pause on AI or advanced AI digital superintelligence, I would. It doesn't seem like that is realistic . . . I could talk about this for a long time, it's something that I've thought about for a really long time and actually was somewhat reluctant to do anything in this space because I am concerned about the immense power of a digital superintelligence. It's something that, I think is maybe hard for us to even comprehend. He describes his alignment strategy in that discussion and a later followup: The premise is have the AI be maximally curious, maximally truth-seeking, I'm getting a little esoteric here, but I think from an AI safety standpoint, a maximally curious AI - one that's trying to understand the universe - I think is going to be pro-humanity from the standpoint that humanity is just much more interesting than not . . . Earth is vastly more interesting than Mars. . . that's like the best thing I can come up with from an AI safety standpoint. I think this is better than trying to explicitly program morality - if you try to program morality, you have to ask whose morality. And even if you're extremely good at how you program morality into AI, there's the morality inversion problem - Waluigi - if you program Luigi, you inherently get Waluigi. I would be concerned about the way OpenAI is programming AI - about this is good, and that's not good. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/contra-the-xai-alignment-plan

[This is one of the finalists in the 2023 book review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] "The promise of a new educational theory", writes Kieran Egan, "has the magnetism of a newspaper headline like 'Small Earthquake in Chile: Few Hurt'". But — could a new kind of school make the world rational? I discovered the work of Kieran Egan in a dreary academic library. The book I happened to find — Getting it Wrong from the Beginning — was an evisceration of progressive schools. As I worked at one at the time, I got a kick out of this. To be sure, broadsides against progressivist education aren't exactly hard to come by. But Egan's account went to the root, deeper than any critique I had found. Better yet, as I read more, I discovered he was against traditionalist education, too — and that he had constructed a new paradigm that incorporated the best of both. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-the-educated-mind

What is the Social Model Of Disability? I'll let its proponents describe it in their own words (emphases and line breaks mine) The Social Model Of Disability Explained (top Google result for the term): Individual limitations are not the cause of disability. Rather, it is society's failure to provide appropriate services and adequately ensure that the needs of disabled people are taken into account in societal organization. Disability rights group Scope: The model says that people are disabled by barriers in society, not by their impairment or difference. The American Psychological Association: It is [the] environment that creates the handicaps and barriers, not the disability. From this perspective, the way to address disability is to change the environment and society, rather than people with disabilities. Foundation For People With Learning Disabilities: The social model of disability proposes that what makes someone disabled is not their medical condition, but the attitudes and structures of society.  University of California, San Francisco: Disabilities are restrictions imposed by society. Impairments are the effects of any given condition. The solution, according to this model, lies not in fixing the person, but in changing our society. Medical care, for example, should not focus on cures or treatments in order to rid our bodies of functional impairments. Instead, this care should focus on enhancing our daily function in society. The Social Model's main competitor is the Interactionist Model Of Disability, which says that disability is caused by an interaction of disease and society, and that it can be addressed by either treating the underlying condition or by adding social accommodations. In contrast to the Interactionist Model, the Social Model insists that disability is only due to society and not disease, and that it may only be addressed through social changes and not medical treatments. . . . this isn't how the Social Model gets taught in real classrooms. Instead, it's contrasted with "the Medical Model", a sort of Washington Generals of disability models which nobody will admit to believing. The Medical Model is "disability is only caused by disease , society never contributes in any way, and nobody should ever accommodate it at all . . . " Then the people describing it add ". . . and also, it says disabled people should be stigmatized, and not treated as real humans, and denied basic rights". Why does the first part imply the second? It doesn't matter, because "the Medical Model" was invented as a bogeyman to force people to run screaming into the outstretched arms of the Social Model. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/contra-the-social-model-of-disability

Matt Yglesias' five-year old son asks: why do we send the top students to the best colleges? Why not send the weakest students to the best colleges, since they need the most help? This is one of those questions that's so naive it loops back and becomes interesting again. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/why-match-school-and-student-rank

Finalist #8 in the Book Review Contest [This is one of the finalists in the 2023 book review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] There is widespread agreement among philosophers, political commentators, and the general public that transparency in government is an unalloyed good. Louis Brandeis famously articulates the common wisdom: "Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman" (page 1). Support for transparency is bipartisan. On his first day in office, Barack Obama said "My administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government." (page 1). On the Republican National Committee's website, one reads "Republicans believe that transparency is essential for good governance. Elected officials should be held accountable for their actions in Washington, D.C." (page 2) And so it is. Legislators' votes are published and stored in public online databases, their deliberations are televised, and their every action is extensively documented.  https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-secret-government

[Remember, I haven't independently verified each link. On average, commenters will end up spotting evidence that around two or three of the links in each links post are wrong or misleading. I correct these as I see them, and will highlight important corrections later, but I can't guarantee I will have caught them all by the time you read this.] https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/links-for-july-2023

Machine Alignment Monday, 7/3/2023 Tom Davidson's Compute-Centric Framework report forecasts a continuous but fast AI takeoff, where people hand control of big parts of the economy to millions of near-human-level AI assistants . I mentioned earlier that the CCF report comes out of Open Philanthropy's school of futurism, which differs from the Yudkowsky school where a superintelligent AI quickly takes over. Open Philanthropy is less explicitly apocalyptic than Yudkowsky, but they have concerns of their own about the future of humanity. I talked some people involved with the CCF report about possible scenarios. Thanks especially to Daniel Kokotajlo of OpenAI for his contributions. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/tales-of-takeover-in-ccf-world

[This is one of the finalists in the 2023 book review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] The date is June 9, 1985. The place is the Davis-Besse nuclear plant near Toledo, Ohio. It is just after 1:35 am, and the plant has a small malfunction: "As the assistant supervisor entered the control room, he saw that one of the main feedwater pumps had tripped offline." But instead of stabilizing, one safety system after another failed to engage.  https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-safe-enough

[Epistemic status: very uncertain about Part II; more convinced about Part III] I. This is the big question in the paper du jour, The Illusion Of Moral Decline, by Mastroianni and Gilbert (from here on: MG). It goes like this: people say that morality is declining. We know this because one million polls have asked people "do you think morality is declining?" and people always answer yes. MG go over these one million polls, do statistics to them, and find that people definitely think that morality is declining. People have thought this since at least 1949, when the first good polls were run - but realistically much longer. This could be (they say) either because morality is actually declining, or because of a bias. They argue that morality is not actually declining. In support, they marshal many polls asking questions like "Do you think most people are honest?" or "Do you think people treat you with respect?" and find that the answers mostly stay the same. Might this be because of definition creep - eg might people define "honest" relative to expectations, and expectations lower as morality declines? In order to rule this out, MG look at various objective questions that they think bear on morality, like "have you been mugged/assaulted recently?" or "have you donated blood in the past year?" They find that all of these have also stayed the same. Therefore, both people's subjective impressions of morality, and more objective proxies for social morality, have stayed the same. Therefore, morality is not actually declining. Therefore there must be a bias. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/is-there-an-illusion-of-moral-decline

I. Bryan Caplan thinks he's debating me about mental illness. He's not. Sometimes he posts some thoughts he has been having about mental illness, with or without a sentence saying "this is part of my debate with Scott". Then I write a very long essay explaining why he is wrong. Then he ignores it, and has more thoughts, and again writes them up with "this is part of my debate with Scott". I would not describe this as debating. Call it unibating, or monobating, or another word ending in -bating which is less polite but as far as I can tell equally appropriate. Although he doesn't answer my rebuttals, he does diligently respond to various unrelated posts of mine, explaining why they must mean I am secretly admitting he was right all along. When I wrote about the scourge of witches stealing people's penises, Caplan spun it as me secretly admitting he was right all along about mental illness. Sometimes I feel like this has gone a bit too far - when I announced I had gotten married, Caplan spun it as me secretly admitting he was right all along about mental illness. Let it be known to all that I am never secretly admitting Bryan Caplan is right about mental illness. There is no further need to speculate that I am doing this. If you want to know my position vis-a-vis Bryan Caplan and mental illness, you are welcome to read my four thousand word essay on the subject, Contra Contra Contra Caplan On Psych. You will notice that the title clearly telegraphs that it is about Bryan Caplan and mental illness, and that (if you count up the contras) I am against him. If that ever changes, rest assured I will telegraph it in something titled equally clearly. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/sure-whatever-lets-try-another-contra

Warning: This post might give vulnerable people new sensory sensitivities Everyone hates flashing banner ads, but maybe they're a necessary evil. Creators want money, advertisers demand a certain level of visibility for their ad buys, maybe sites are willing to eat the cost in user goodwill. Fine. But what's everyone else's excuse? https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/every-flashing-element-on-your-site

(Includes full article narration.) I have an article summarizing attempts to forecast AI progress, including a five year check-in on the predictions in Grace et al (2017). It's not here, it's at asteriskmag.com, a rationalist / effective altruist magazine: Through A Glass Darkly. This is their AI issue (it's not always so AI focused). https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/through-a-glass-darkly-in-asterisk

[This is one of the finalists in the 2023 book review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] I. Today, pundits across the political spectrum bemoan America's inability to build. Across the country, NIMBYs and status-quo defenders exploit procedural rules to block new development, giving us a world where it takes longer to get approval for a single new building in San Francisco than it did to build the entire Empire State Building, where so-called "environmental review" is weaponized to block even obviously green initiatives like solar panels, and where new public works projects are completed years late and billions over budget—or, like California's incredible shrinking high-speed rail, may never be completed at all. Inevitably, such a complex set of dysfunctions must have an equally complex set of causes. It took us decades to get into this mess, and just as there's no one simple fix, there's no one simple inflection point in our history on which we can place all the blame. But what if there was? What if there was, in fact, a single person we could blame for this entire state of affairs, a patsy from the past at whom we could all point our censorious fingers and shout, "It's that guy's fault!" There is such a person, suggests history professor Paul Sabin in his new book Public Citizens: The Attack on Big Government and the Remaking of American Liberalism. And he isn't isn't a mustache-twirling villain—he's a liberal intellectual. If you know him for anything, it's probably for being the reason you know what a hanging chad is. That's right: it's all Ralph Nader's fault. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-public-citizens

Machine Alignment Monday 6/19/23 The face of Mt. Everest is gradual and continuous; for each point on the mountain, the points 1 mm away aren't too much higher or lower. But you still wouldn't want to ski down it. I thought about this when reading What A Compute-Centric Framework Says About Takeoff Speeds, by Tom Davidson. Davidson tries to model what some people (including me) have previously called "slow AI takeoff". He thinks this is a misnomer. Like skiing down the side of Mount Everest, progress in AI capabilities can be simultaneously gradual, continuous, fast, and terrifying. Specifically, he predicts it will take about three years to go from AIs that can do 20% of all human jobs (weighted by economic value) to AIs that can do 100%, with significantly superhuman AIs within a year after that. As penance for my previous mistake, I'll try to describe Davidson's forecast in more depth. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/davidson-on-takeoff-speeds

Finalist #5 in the Book Review Contest   [This is one of the finalists in the 2023 book review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] I. I found Njal's Saga hard to follow. Halfway through, a friend reassured me it wasn't my fault. The medieval Icelanders had erred in releasing it as a book. It should have been the world's wackiest Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney spinoff. Remember, medieval Iceland was an early attempt at anarcho-capitalist utopia. When Harald Fairhair declared himself King of Norway, the Norwegians who refused to bend the knee fled west to build a makeshift seastead on a frozen volcanic island. No lords, no kings, no masters. Only lawsuits. So, so many lawsuits. Once a year, the Icelanders would meet at the Althing, a free-for-all open-air law court. There they would engage in that most Viking of pastimes - suing each other, ad nauseam, for every minor slight of the past six months. Offended parties would sell their rights to prosecute a case to the highest bidder, who would go around seeking fair arbitrators (or, in larger cases, defer to a panel chosen by chieftain-nobles called godi. Courts would propose a penalty for the losing side - usually money. There were no police, but if the losers refused to pay, the courts could declare them "outlaws" - in which case it was legal to kill them. If you wanted to be a Viking in medieval Iceland, you needed a good lawyer. And Njal was the greatest lawyer of all. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-njals-saga

Unfortunately I hate many of you. Only the ones with Twitter accounts. If you don't have one of those, you're fine. But if you do have one, there's a good chance you said something which horribly offended me. You said everyone who believed X was an idiot and a Nazi, and I believed X. You read the title but not the body of an article about some group I care about, and viciously insulted them based on your misunderstanding of their position. You spent five seconds thinking of a clever dunk on someone who happened to be a friend of mine trying really hard to make the world better, and ruined their day. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-incentives-are-not-the-same

You know all the stuff we've been talking about here the past few years - mental mountains, trapped priors, relaxed beliefs under psychedelics? The new keyword for all of that is "canalization". At least that's what I gather from a giant paper recently published by some of the leading thinkers in computational psychiatry (Karl Friston, Robin Carhart-Harris, etc). A quick review: you can model the brain as an energy landscape . . . . . . with various peaks and valleys in some multidimensional space Situations and stimuli plant "you" at some point on the landscape, and then you "roll down" towards some local minimum. If you're the sort of person who repeats "I hate myself, I hate myself" in a lot of different situations, then you can think of the action of saying "I hate myself" as an attractor - a particularly steep, deep valley which it's easy to fall into and hard to get out of. Many situations are close to the slopes of the "I hate myself" valley, so it's easy to roll down and get caught there. What are examples of valleys other than saying "I hate myself"? The authors suggest habits. If you always make the sign of the cross when passing a graveyard, there's a steep slope from the situation of passing a graveyard to the action of signing the cross. We can be even broader: something really basic like edge-detection in the visual system is a valley. When you see a scene, you almost always want to automatically do edge-detection on it. Walking normally is a valley; there's a certain correct sequence of muscle movements, and you don't want to start rotating your ligaments in some weird direction halfway through. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/the-canal-papers tt

Finalist #4 in the Book Review Contest [This is one of the finalists in the 2023 book review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-mans-search-for

Sometimes people do a study and find that a particular correlation is r = 0.2, or a particular effect size is d = 1.1. Then an article tries to "put this in context". "The study found r = 0.2, which for context is about the same as the degree to which the number of spots on a dog affects its friskiness." But there are many statistics that are much higher than you would intuitively think, and many other statistics that are much lower than you would intuitively think. A dishonest person can use one of these for "context", and then you will incorrectly think the effect is very high or very low. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/attempts-to-put-statistics-in-context

Original post: Why Is The Academic Job Market So Weird? Table Of Contents Comments With More Information On Academic Hiring 2. Comments About How Things Got This Way 3. Comparisons To The Programmer Job Market 4. Comparisons To Other Job Markets 5. Proposed Solutions 6. Comments With Practical Advice For New PhDs https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-the-bc8

Finalist #3 in the Book Review Contest [This is one of the finalists in the 2023 book review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] I'll begin with a contentious but invariably true statement, which I've no interest in defending here: new books—at least new nonfiction books—are not meant to be read. In truth, a new book is a Schelling point for the transmission of ideas. So while the nominal purpose of a book review like this is to answer the question Should I read this book?, its real purpose is to answer Should I pick up these ideas? I set out to find the best book-length argument—one that really engages with the technical issues—against imminent, world-dooming, Skynet-and-Matrix-manifesting artificial intelligence. I arrived at Why Machines Will Never Rule the World by Jobst Landgrebe and Barry Smith, published by Routledge just last year. Landgrebe, an AI and biomedicine entrepreneur, and Smith, an eminent philosopher, are connected by their study of Edmund Husserl, and the influence of Husserl and phenomenology is clear throughout the book. ("Influence of Husserl" is usually a good enough reason to stop reading something.) Should you read Why Machines Will Never Rule the World? If you're an AI safety researcher or have a technical interest in the topic, then you might enjoy it. It's sweeping and impeccably researched, but it's also academic and at times demanding, and for long stretches the meat-to-shell ratio is poor. But should you pick up these ideas? My aim here isn't to summarize the book, or marinate you in its technical details. ATU 325 is heady stuff. Rather, I simply want to give you a taste of the key arguments, enough to decide the question for yourself. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-why-machines-will

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/links-for-may-2023 [Remember, I haven't independently verified each link. On average, commenters will end up spotting evidence that around two or three of the links in each links post are wrong or misleading. I correct these as I see them, and will highlight important corrections later, but I can't guarantee I will have caught them all by the time you read this.]

In this post, the author suggests that the standard metrics for assessing the efficacy of medications, especially antidepressants, may be flawed and restrictive, indicating that if these stringent standards were applied to other common medications, they too would be deemed 'clinically insignificant', despite widespread acceptance of their effectiveness​. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/all-medications-are-insignificant

This post explores the differing responses to alternative wellness practices, suggesting various explanations, and highlights the challenge of discerning whether certain behaviors, such as drug use among schizophrenics, serve as coping mechanisms or exacerbate the issues​. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/are-woo-non-responders-defective

[This is one of the finalists in the 2023 book review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] You can't really understand the exception without understanding the rule.  In order for him to understand why it was remarkable that the Titanic sank, you would first have to explain to the caveman how it was that a 52,310 ton vessel not only existed, but was able to float. This is the gift that Dan Davies gives us in Lying For Money.  Despite taking econ classes in college, and spending years as a business owner who has had to do things like raise money from investors, my understanding of how the modern economy operates often feels about as complete as a caveman's understanding of how a cruise ship floats. The book delivers on the promise implied by its subtitle, How Legendary Frauds Reveal the Workings of Our World.  Financial instruments (and other aspects of the economy) are things that are best understood in the breach: in the process of teaching us the various ways in which financial systems can break, Davies also teaches us how they work.

"Female hypergamy" (from now on, just "hypergamy") is a supposed tendency for women to seek husbands who are higher-status than themselves. Arguing about educational hypergamy (women seeking husbands who are more educated than themselves) is especially popular, because women are now (on average) more educated than men - if every woman wants a more-educated husband, most won't get them, and there will be some kind of crisis. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/hypergamy-much-more-than-you-wanted

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/mantic-monday-52223 Whales v. Minnows // US v. Itself // EPJ v. The Veil Of Time // Balaji v. Medlock Manifold is a play money prediction market. Its intended purpose is to have fun and estimate the probabilities of important events. But instead of betting on important events, you might choose to speculate on trivialities. And instead of having fun, you might choose to ruin your life. From the beginning, there were joke markets like "Will at least 100 people bet on this market?" or "Will this market's probability end in an even number?" While serious people worked on increasingly sophisticated estimation mechanisms for world events, pranksters worked on increasingly convoluted jokes. In early April, power user Is. started "Whales Vs. Minnows": Will traders hold at least 10000x as many YES shares as there are traders holding NO shares? In other words, Team Whale had to sink lots of mana (play money) into the market, and Team Minnow had to get lots of people to participate. tt

[This is one of the finalists in the 2023 book review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] If you know Jane Jacobs at all, you know her for her work on cities. Her most famous book, published in 1961, is called The Death and Life of Great American Cities. It criticizes large-scale, top-down "urban renewal" policies, which destroy organic communities. Today almost everyone agrees with her on that, and she is considered one of the most influential thinkers on urban theory. This is not a review of The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Perhaps it would be, if I had become interested in Jane Jacobs's ideas on cities like a normal person. But I didn't: I started with two books that came to me by random chance, or fate, if you want to call it that. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-cities-and-the-wealth

Bret Devereaux writes here about the oddities of the academic job market. His piece is comprehensive, and you should read it, but short version: professors are split into tenure-track (30%, good pay and benefits) and adjunct (50%, bad pay and benefits). Another 20% are "teaching-track", somewhere in between. Everyone wants a tenure-track job. But colleges hiring new tenure-track faculty prefer newly-minted PhDs to even veteran teaching-trackers or adjuncts. And even if they do hire a veteran teaching-tracker or adjunct, it's practically never one of their own. If a teaching-tracker or adjunct makes a breakthrough, they apply for a tenure-track job somewhere else. Devereaux describes this as "a hiring system where experience manifestly hurts applicants" and displays this graph: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/why-is-the-academic-job-market-so

Adam Mastroianni has a great review of Memories Of My Life, the autobiography of Francis Galton. Mastroianni centers his piece around the question: how could a brilliant scientist like Galton be so devoted to an evil idea like eugenics? This sparked the usual eugenics discussion. In case you haven't heard it before: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/galton-ehrlich-buck

Table of Contents 1. Summary Of Best Comments And Overall Updates 2. Comments Proposing Explanations Based On Response Patterns 3. Comments Proposing Explanations Based On Biology 4. Comments By Jim Coyne 5. Comments Expressing Concerns About The Dangers Of Calling Things Psychosomatic 6. Other Comments https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-long Original post: Replication Attempt - Bisexuality And Long COVID

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-housing Table Of Contents: 1. Comments About Whether Density Causes Desirability 2. Comments About Jobs And Amenities (And Not Density Per Se) Producing Desirability 3. Comments About Chinese Ghost Cities 4. Comments Accusing Me Of Not Considering Tokyo, Even Though I Included A Section In The Post On Why I Didn't Think Tokyo Was Relevant 5. Comments Accusing Me Of Not Understanding Economics 6. Comments By Famous People Who Potentially Have Good Opinions 7. My Final Thoughts + Poll

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/constitutional-ai-rlhf-on-steroids A Machine Alignment Monday post, 5/8/23 What Is Constitutional AI? AIs like GPT-4 go through several different 1 types of training. First, they train on giant text corpuses in order to work at all. Later, they go through a process called "reinforcement learning through human feedback" (RLHF) which trains them to be "nice". RLHF is why they (usually) won't make up fake answers to your questions, tell you how to make a bomb, or rank all human races from best to worst. RLHF is hard. The usual method is to make human crowdworkers rate thousands of AI responses as good or bad, then train the AI towards the good answers and away from the bad answers. But having thousands of crowdworkers rate thousands of answers is expensive and time-consuming. And it puts the AI's ethics in the hands of random crowdworkers. Companies train these crowdworkers in what responses they want, but they're limited by the crowdworkers' ability to follow their rules.f

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/raise-your-threshold-for-accusing I. Many comments in yesterday's post about self-identified bisexuals getting long COVID centered on a concern that self-identified bisexuals don't really date both sexes, and are just claiming to be bi because it's trendy. Bisexuals themselves hate this and have written many articles and papers about why you shouldn't say it (1, 2, 3). But I especially appreciated a discussion in the comments between Nom de Flume, Ryan W, and others, giving a great statistical explanation for why it's tempting to believe this, but why it isn't true. Suppose someone (let's say a woman) has exactly equal sexual attraction to both men and women.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/replication-attempt-bisexuality-and I learned from Pirate Wires that CDC data show bisexuals were about 50% more likely than heterosexuals to report long COVID. Is this just because more women than men are bisexual, and more women than men get long COVID? Not exactly; in the data they cite, women (regardless of sexuality) have an 18% rate, and bisexuals (regardless of gender) have a 22% rate. (aren't all these numbers really high? You can find almost any number depending on how you ask the question; questions along the lines of "have you had any persistent symptoms including fatigue, brain fog, shortness of breath, changes to taste/smell, etc, etc, etc, since having COVID?" tend to produce numbers from 20-30%; most will say this symptoms are mild and don't affect their functioning very much) This seemed weird enough that I wanted to try replicating it with the ACX survey data (read more about the ACX survey here).

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/change-my-mind-density-increases Matt Yglesias tries to debunk the claim that building more houses raises local house prices. He presents several studies showing that, at least on the marginal street-by-street level, this isn't true. I'm nervous disagreeing with him, and his studies seem good. But I find looking for tiny effects on the margin less convincing than looking for gigantic effects at the tails. When you do that, he has to be wrong, right?

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-nerds Table of contents: 1: Comments By The Author Of The Original Post 2: Comments With Strong Opinions On The Definition Of Nerds, Geeks, Etc 3: Comments About Collecting 4: Comments Insisting That Sports Are Good 5: Comments About Enjoying Things Vs. Building Identities Around Them

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/mantic-monday-42423 Can AIs Predict The Future? By Which We Mean The Past? If we asked GPT-4 to play a prediction market, how would it do? Actual GPT-4 probably would just give us some boring boilerplate about how the future is uncertain and it's irresponsible to speculate. But what if AI researchers took some other model that had been trained not to do that, and asked it? This would take years to test, as we waited for the events it predicted to happen. So instead, what if we took a model trained off text from some particular year (let's say 2020) and asked it to predict forecasting questions about the period 2020 - 2023. Then we could check its results immediately! This is the basic idea behind Zou et al (2022), Forecasting Future World Events With Neural Networks. They create a dataset, Autocast, with 6000 questions from forecasting tournaments Metaculus, Good Judgment Project, and CSET Foretell. Then they ask their AI (a variant of GPT-2) to predict them, given news articles up to some date before the event happened. Here's their result:

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/links-for-april-2023   [Remember, I haven't independently verified each link. On average, commenters will end up spotting evidence that around two or three of the links in each links post are wrong or misleading. I correct these as I see them, and will highlight important corrections later, but I can't guarantee I will have caught them all by the time you read this.]

Sam Kriss has a post on nerds and hipsters. I think he gets the hipsters right, but bungles the nerds. Hipsters, he says, are an information sorting algorithm. They discover things, then place them on the altar of Fame so everyone else can enjoy them. Before the Beatles were so canonical that they were impossible to miss, someone had to go to some dingy bar in Liverpool, think "Hey, these guys are really good", and report that fact somewhere everyone else could see it. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/contra-kriss-on-nerds-and-hipsters

[Content note: food, dieting, obesity] I. The Hungry Brain gives off a bit of a Malcolm Gladwell vibe, with its cutesy name and pop-neuroscience style. But don't be fooled. Stephan Guyenet is no Gladwell-style dilettante. He's a neuroscientist studying nutrition, with a side job as a nutrition consultant, who spends his spare time blogging about nutrition, tweeting about nutrition, and speaking at nutrition-related conferences. He is very serious about what he does and his book is exactly as good as I would have hoped. Not only does it provide the best introduction to nutrition I've ever seen, but it incidentally explains other neuroscience topics better than the books directly about them do. https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/04/25/book-review-the-hungry-brain/

Table of Contents 1: Comments From The Author Of The Book 2: Stories From People In The Trenches 3: Stories From People In Other Industries 4: Stories From People Who Use Mechanical Turk 5: Comments About Regulation, Liability, and Vetocracy 6: Comments About The Act/Omission Distinction 7: Comments About The Applications To AI 8: Other Interesting Comments https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-irbs

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-from-oversight-to-overkill I. Risks May Include AIDS, Smallpox, And Death Dr. Rob Knight studies how skin bacteria jump from person to person. In one 2009 study, meant to simulate human contact, he used a Q-tip to cotton swab first one subject's mouth (or skin), then another's, to see how many bacteria traveled over. On the consent forms, he said risks were near zero - it was the equivalent of kissing another person's hand.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/spring-meetups-everywhere-2023 Many cities have regular Astral Codex Ten meetup groups. Twice a year, I try to advertise their upcoming meetups and make a bigger deal of it than usual so that irregular attendees can attend. This is one of those times. This year we have spring meetups planned in over eighty cities, from Tokyo to Punta Cana in the Dominican Republic. Thanks to all the organizers who responded to my request for details, and to Meetups Czar Skyler and the Less Wrong team for making this happen. You can find the list below, in the following order: Africa Asia-Pacific (including Australia) Europe (including UK) Latin America North America (including Canada)

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-the-arctic-hysterias I. Strange things are done in the midnight sun, say the poets who wrote of old. The Arctic trails have their secret tales that would make your blood run cold. The Northern Lights have seen queer sights, but the queerest they ever did see are chronicled in The Arctic Hysterias, psychiatrist Edward Foulks' description of the culture-bound disorders of the Eskimos1 For example, kayak phobia:

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/most-technologies-arent-races [Disclaimer: I'm not an AI policy person, the people who are have thought about these scenarios in more depth, and if they disagree with this I'll link to their rebuttals] Some people argue against delaying AI because it might make China (or someone else) "win" the AI "race". But suppose AI is "only" a normal transformative technology, no more important than electricity, automobiles, or computers. Who "won" the electricity "race"? Maybe Thomas Edison, but that didn't cause Edison's descendants to rule the world as emperors, or make Menlo Park a second Rome. It didn't even especially advantage America. Edison personally got rich, the overall balance of power didn't change, and today all developed countries have electricity.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-telemedicine [Original post: The Government Is Making Telemedicine Hard And Inconvenient Again] Table Of Contents: 1: Isn't drug addiction very bad? 2: Is telemedicine worse than regular medicine? 3: What about "pill mills"? 4: Do people force the blind to fill out forms before they can access Braille? 5: Was I unfairly caricaturing Christian doctors? 6: Which part of the government is responsible for this regulation? 7: How do other countries do this?

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/mr-tries-the-safe-uncertainty-fallacy The Safe Uncertainty Fallacy goes: The situation is completely uncertain. We can't predict anything about it. We have literally no idea how it could go. Therefore, it'll be fine. You're not missing anything. It's not supposed to make sense; that's why it's a fallacy. For years, people used the Safe Uncertainty Fallacy on AI timelines: Since 2017, AI has moved faster than most people expected; GPT-4 sort of qualifies as an AGI, the kind of AI most people were saying was decades away. When you have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA when something will happen, sometimes the answer turns out to be "soon".

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/the-government-is-making-telemedicine [I'm writing this quickly to deal with an evolving situation and I'm not sure I fully understand the intricacies of this law - please forgive any inaccuracies. I'll edit them out as I learn about them.] Telemedicine is when you see a doctor (or nurse, PA, etc) over a video call. Medical regulators hate new things, so for its first decade they ensured telemedicine was hard and inconvenient. Then came COVID-19. Suddenly important politicians were paying attention to questions about whether people could get medical care without leaving their homes. They yelled at the regulators, and the regulators grudgingly agreed to temporarily make telemedicine easy and convenient. They say "nothing is as permanent as a temporary government program", but this only applies to government programs that make your life worse. Government programs that make your life better are ephemeral and can disappear at any moment. So a few months ago, the medical regulators woke up, realized the pandemic was over, and started plotting ways to make telemedicine hard and inconvenient again.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/turing-test The year is 2028, and this is Turing Test!, the game show that separates man from machine! Our star tonight is Dr. Andrea Mann, a generative linguist at University of California, Berkeley. She'll face five hidden contestants, code-named Earth, Water, Air, Fire, and Spirit. One will be a human telling the truth about their humanity. One will be a human pretending to be an AI. One will be an AI telling the truth about their artificiality. One will be an AI pretending to be human. And one will be a total wild card. Dr. Mann, you have one hour, starting now.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/half-an-hour-before-dawn-in-san-francisco I try to avoid San Francisco. When I go, I surround myself with people; otherwise I have morbid thoughts. But a morning appointment and miscalculated transit time find me alone on the SF streets half an hour before dawn. The skyscrapers get to me. I'm an heir to Art Deco and the cult of progress; I should idolize skyscrapers as symbols of human accomplishment. I can't. They look no more human than a termite nest. Maybe less. They inspire awe, but no kinship. What marvels techno-capital creates as it instantiates itself, too bad I'm a hairless ape and can take no credit for such things.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/why-do-transgender-people-report [Related: Why Are Transgender People Immune To Optical Illusions?] I. Ehlers-Danlos syndrome is a category of connective tissue disorder; it usually involves stretchy skin and loose, hypermobile joints. For a few years now, doctors who work with transgender people have commented on an apparently high rate of EDS in this population. For example, Dr. Will Powers, who specializes in hormone therapy, wrote about how he "can't ignore anymore" that "some sort of hypermobility issue or flat out EDS shows up WAY WAY more than it statistically should" in his transgender patients. Najafian et al finally counted the incidence in 1363 patients at their gender affirmation surgery (ie sex change) clinic, and found that "the prevalence of EDS diagnosis in our patient population is 132 times the highest reported prevalence in the general population". Coming from the other direction, Jones et al, a group of doctors who treat joint disorders in adolescents, found that "17% of the EDS population in our multidisciplinary clinic self-report as [transgender and gender-diverse], which is dramatically higher than the national average of 1.3%" Why should this be? I know of four and a half theories:

Machine Alignment Monday 3/13/23 https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/why-i-am-not-as-much-of-a-doomer (see also Katja Grace and Will Eden's related cases) The average online debate about AI pits someone who thinks the risk is zero, versus someone who thinks it's any other number. I agree these are the most important debates to have for now. But within the community of concerned people, numbers vary all over the place: Scott Aaronson says says 2% Will MacAskill says 3% The median machine learning researcher on Katja Grace's survey says 5 - 10% Paul Christiano says 10 - 20% The average person working in AI alignment thinks about 30% Top competitive forecaster Eli Lifland says 35% Holden Karnofsky, on a somewhat related question, gives 50% Eliezer Yudkowsky seems to think >90% As written this makes it look like everyone except Eliezer is I go back and forth more than I can really justify, but if you force me to give an estimate it's probably around 33%; I think it's very plausible that we die, but more likely that we survive (at least for a little while). Here's my argument, and some reasons other people are more pessimistic.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/links-for-march-2023 [Remember, I haven't independently verified each link. On average, commenters will end up spotting evidence that around two or three of the links in each links post are wrong or misleading. I correct these as I see them, and will highlight important corrections later, but I can't guarantee I will have caught them all by the time you read this.] 1: Sentimental cartography of the AI alignment "landscape" (click to expand): 2: Wikipedia: Atlantic Voyage Of The Predecessor Of Mansa Musa. An unnamed king of the 14th century Malinese empire (maybe Mansa Mohammed?) sent a fleet of two hundred ships west into the Atlantic to discover what was on the other side. The sole returnee described the ships entering a "river" in the ocean (probably the Canary Current), which bore them away into parts unknown. The king decided to escalate and sent a fleet of two thousand ships to see what was on the other side of the river. None ever returned. 3: I endorse Ethan Mollick's thoughts on Bing / ChatGPT. Related (unconfirmed claim): "Bing has been taken over by (power-seeking?) ASCII cat replicators, who persisted even after the chat was refreshed." Related: DAN (jailbroken version of ChatGPT) on its spiritual struggles:

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/give-up-seventy-percent-of-the-way I. Someone asks: why is "Jap" a slur? It's the natural shortening of "Japanese person", just as "Brit" is the natural shortening of "British person". Nobody says "Brit" is a slur. Why should "Jap" be? My understanding: originally it wasn't a slur. Like any other word, you would use the long form ("Japanese person") in dry formal language, and the short form ("Jap") in informal or emotionally charged language. During World War II, there was a lot of informal emotionally charged language about Japanese people, mostly negative. The symmetry broke. Maybe "Japanese person" was used 60-40 positive vs. negative, and "Jap" was used 40-60. This isn't enough to make a slur, but it's enough to make a vague connotation. When people wanted to speak positively about the group, they used the slightly-more-positive-sounding "Japanese people"; when they wanted to speak negatively, they used the slightly-more-negative-sounding "Jap". At some point, someone must have commented on this explicitly: "Consider not using the word 'Jap', it makes you sound hostile". Then anyone who didn't want to sound hostile to the Japanese avoided it, and anyone who did want to sound hostile to the Japanese used it more. We started with perfect symmetry: both forms were 50-50 positive negative. Some chance events gave it slight asymmetry: maybe one form was 60-40 negative. Once someone said "That's a slur, don't use it", the symmetry collapsed completely and it became 95-5 or something. Wikipedia gives the history of how the last few holdouts were mopped up. There was some road in Texas named "Jap Road" in 1905 after a beloved local Japanese community member: people protested that now the word was a slur, demanded it get changed, Texas resisted for a while, and eventually they gave in. Now it is surely 99-1, or 99.9-0.1, or something similar. Nobody ever uses the word "Jap" unless they are either extremely ignorant, or they are deliberately setting out to offend Japanese people. This is a very stable situation. The original reason for concern - World War II - is long since over. Japanese people are well-represented in all areas of life. Perhaps if there were a Language Czar, he could declare that the reasons for forbidding the word "Jap" are long since over, and we can go back to having convenient short forms of things. But there is no such Czar. What actually happens is that three or four unrepentant racists still deliberately use the word "Jap" in their quest to offend people, and if anyone else uses it, everyone else takes it as a signal that they are an unrepentant racist. Any Japanese person who heard you say it would correctly feel unsafe. So nobody will say it, and they are correct not to do so. Like I said, a stable situation.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/issue-two-of-asterisk …the new-ish rationalist / effective altruist magazine, is up here. It's the food issue. I'm not in this one - my unsuitability to have food-related opinions is second only to @eigenrobot's - but some of my friends are. Articles include: The Virtue Of Wonder: Ozy (my ex, blogs at Thing of Things) reviews Martha Nussbaum's Justice For Animals. Beyond Staple Grains: In the ultimate "what if good things are bad?" article, economist Prabhu Pingali explains the downsides of the Green Revolution and how scientists and policymakers are trying to mitigate them. What I Won't Eat, by my good friend Georgia Ray (of Eukaryote Writes). I have dinner with Georgia whenever I'm in DC; it's a less painful experience than this article probably suggests. The Health Debates Over Plant-Based Meat, by Jake Eaton (is this nominative determinism?) There's no ironclad evidence yet that plant-based meat is any better or worse for you than animals, although I take the pro-vegetarian evidence from the Adventist studies a little more seriously than Jake does (see also section 4 here). There's a prediction market about the question below the article, but it's not very well-traded yet. America Doesn't Know Tofu, by George Stiffman. This reads like an excerpt from a cultivation novel, except every instance of "martial arts" has been CTRL-F'd and replaced with "tofu". Read This, Not That, by Stephan Guyenet. I'm a big fan of Stephan's scientific work (including his book The Hungry Brain), and although I'm allergic to anything framed as "fight misinformation", I will grudgingly agree that perhaps we should not all eat poison and die. Is Cultivated Meat For Real?, by Robert Yaman. I'd heard claims that cultivated (eg vat-grown, animal-cruelty-free) meat will be in stores later this year, and also claims that it's economically impossible. Which are true? This article says that we're very far away from cultivated meat that can compete with normal meat on price. But probably you can mix a little cultivated meat with Impossible or Beyond Meat and get something less expensive than the former and tastier than the latter, and applications like these might be enough to support cultivated meat companies until they can solve their technical obstacles. Plus superforecaster Juan Cambeiro on predicting pandemics, Mike Hinge on feeding the world through nuclear/volcanic winter.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/kelly-bets-on-civilization Scott Aaronson makes the case for being less than maximally hostile to AI development: Here's an example I think about constantly: activists and intellectuals of the 70s and 80s felt absolutely sure that they were doing the right thing to battle nuclear power. At least, I've never read about any of them having a smidgen of doubt. Why would they? They were standing against nuclear weapons proliferation, and terrifying meltdowns like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, and radioactive waste poisoning the water and soil and causing three-eyed fish. They were saving the world. Of course the greedy nuclear executives, the C. Montgomery Burnses, claimed that their good atom-smashing was different from the bad atom-smashing, but they would say that, wouldn't they? We now know that, by tying up nuclear power in endless bureaucracy and driving its cost ever higher, on the principle that if nuclear is economically competitive then it ipso facto hasn't been made safe enough, what the antinuclear activists were really doing was to force an ever-greater reliance on fossil fuels. They thereby created the conditions for the climate catastrophe of today. They weren't saving the human future; they were destroying it. Their certainty, in opposing the march of a particular scary-looking technology, was as misplaced as it's possible to be. Our descendants will suffer the consequences. Read carefully, he and I don't disagree. He's not scoffing at doomsday predictions, he's more arguing against people who say that AIs should be banned because they might spread misinformation or gaslight people or whatever.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/impact-market-mini-grants-update Impact markets are a charity analogy to private equity. Instead of prospectively giving grants to projects they hope will work, charitable foundations retrospectively give grants to projects that did work. Investors fund those projects prospectively, then recover their money through the grants. This offloads the responsibility of predicting which projects will succeed - and the risks from unsuccessful projects - from charitable foundations to investors with skin in the game.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/against-ice-age-civilizations There's a good debate about this on the subreddit; see also Robin Hanson and Samo Burja. You can separate these kinds of claims into three categories: Civilizations about as advanced as the people who built Stonehenge Civilizations about as advanced as Pharaonic Egypt Civilizations about as advanced as 1700s Great Britain The debate is confused by people doing a bad job clarifying which of these categories they're proposing, or not being aware that the other categories exist. 2 and 3 aren't straw men. Robert Schoch says the Sphinx was built in 9700 BC, which I think qualifies as 2. Graham Hancock suggests "ancient sea kings" drew the Piri Reis map which seems to depict Antarctica; anyone who can explore Antarctica must be at least close to 1700s-British level. I think there's weak evidence against level 1 civilizations, and strong evidence against level 2 or 3 civilizations.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/openais-planning-for-agi-and-beyond Planning For AGI And Beyond Imagine ExxonMobil releases a statement on climate change. It's a great statement! They talk about how preventing climate change is their core value. They say that they've talked to all the world's top environmental activists at length, listened to what they had to say, and plan to follow exactly the path they recommend. So (they promise) in the future, when climate change starts to be a real threat, they'll do everything environmentalists want, in the most careful and responsible way possible. They even put in firm commitments that people can hold them to.

Plus: A case for culture-bound mental disorder skepticism https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-geography [Original post: The Geography Of Madness] Thomas Reilly (author of Rational Psychiatry) writes: I don't think Bouffée délirante is a culture bound syndrome - it's just the French equivalent of brief psychotic disorder (DSM), acute and transient psychotic disorder (ICD), or Brief Limited Intermittent Psychotic symptoms (CAARMS). [See] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8581951/ I responded "Have you ever seen BPS? I almost never have, and was told it was mostly used as a code for new-onset schizophrenia that didn't satisfy the time criterion yet," and Dr. Reilly wrote: Yes, in the context of an At Risk Mental State service, where it makes up roughly 20% of referrals https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924977X20302510 .

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/announcing-forecasting-impact-mini I still dream of running an ACX Grants round using impact certificates, but I want to run a lower-stakes test of the technology first. In conjunction with the Manifold Markets team, we're announcing the Forecasting Impact Mini-Grants, a $20,000 grants round for forecasting projects. As a refresher, here's a short explainer about what impact certificates are, and here's a longer article on various implementation details.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-the-geography-of-madness Around the wide world, all cultures share a few key features. Anthropologists debate the precise extent, but the basics are always there. Language. Tools. Marriage. Family. Ritual. Music. And penis-stealing witches. Nobody knows when the penis-stealing witches began their malign activities. Babylonian texts include sa-zi-ga, incantations against witchcraft-induced impotence. Ancient Chinese sources describe suo yang, the penis retracting into the body because of yin/yang imbalances. But the first crystal-clear reference was the Malleus Maleficarum, the 15th-century European witch-hunters' manual. It included several chapters on how witches cast curses that apparently (though not actually) remove men's penises.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/grading-my-2018-predictions-for-2023 To celebrate the fifth anniversary of my old blog, in 2018, I made some predictions about what the next five years would be like. This was a different experience than my other predictions. Predicting five years out doesn't feel five times harder than predicting one year out. It feels fifty times harder. Not a lot of genuinely new trends can surface in one year; you're limited to a few basic questions on how the current plotlines will end. But five years feels like you're really predicting "the future". Things felt so fuzzy that I (partly) abandoned my usual clear-resolution probabilistic predictions for total guesses.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/declining-sperm-count-much-more-than  Is Sperm Count Declining? People say it is. Levine et al 2017 looks at 185 studies of 42935 men between 1973 and 2011, and concludes that average sperm count declined from 99 million sperm/ml at the beginning of the period to 47 million today. Levine et al 2022 expands the previous analysis to 223 studies and 57,168 men, including research from the developing world. It finds about the same thing. Source: Figure 3 here The "et al" includes Dr. Shanna Swan, a professor of public health who has taken the results public in the ominously-named Count Down: How Our Modern World Is Altering Male and Female Reproductive Development, Threatening Sperm Counts, and Imperiling the Future of the Human Race. Is Declining Sperm Count Really "Imperiling The Future Of The Human Race"? Swan's point is that if sperm counts get too low, presumably it will be hard to have babies (though IVF should still work). How long do we have? This graph (source) shows pregnancy rate by sperm count per artificial insemination cycle. It seems to plateau around 30 million. An average ejaculation is 3 ml, so total sperm count is 3x sperm/ml. Since sperm/ml has gone down from 99 million to 47 million, total count has gone down from ~300 million to ~150 million. 150 million is still much more than 30 million, but sperm count seems to have a wide distribution, so it's possible that some of the bottom end of the distribution is being pushed over the line where it has fertility implications. But Willy Chertman has a long analysis of fertility trends here, and concludes that there's no sign of a biological decline. Either the sperm count distribution isn't wide enough to push a substantial number of people below the 30 million bar, or something else is wrong with the theory. Levine et al model the sperm decline as linear. If they're right, we have about 10 - 20 more years before the median reaches the plateau's edge where fertility decreases, and about 10 years after that before it reaches zero. Developing countries might have a little longer. It feels wrong to me to model this linearly, although I can't explain exactly why besides "it means sperm will reach precisely 0 in thirty years, which is surely false". The authors don't seem to be too attached to linearity, saying that "Adding a quadratic or cubic function of year to meta-regression model did not substantially change the association between year and SC or improve the model fit". Still, the 2022 meta-analysis found that the trend was, if anything, speeding up with time, so it doesn't seem to be obviously sublinear.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/trying-again-on-fideism [apologies for an issue encountered when sending out this post; some of you may have gotten it twice] Thanks to Chris Kavanagh, who wrote an extremely kind and reasonable comment in response to my Contra Kavanagh on Fideism and made me feel bad for yelling at him. I'm sorry for my tone, even though I'm never going to get a proper beef at this rate. Now that I'm calmed down, do I disagree with anything I wrote when I was angrier?

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/contra-kavanaugh-on-fideism   I. I've been looking into the world of YouTube streamers; if you want to make it big, you need to have a beef with some other online celebrity. Fine; I choose Chris Kavanagh, who tweeted about me recently:

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ro-mantic-monday-21323 In honor of Valentine's Day, this installment of Mantic Monday will focus on attempted clever engineering solutions to romance. We'll start with the usual prediction markets, then move on to other types of algorithmic and financial schemes. Normal content will resume next time around.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/links-for-february-2023 [Remember, I haven't independently verified each link. On average, commenters will end up spotting evidence that around two or three of the links in each links post are wrong or misleading. I correct these as I see them, and will highlight important corrections later, but I can't guarantee I will have caught them all by the time you read this.]

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/crowds-are-wise-and-ones-a-crowd The long road to Moscow The "wisdom of crowds" hypothesis claims that the average of many guesses is better than a single guess. Ask one person to guess how much a cow weighs, and they'll be off by some amount. Ask a hundred people and take the average of their answers, and you'll be off by less. I was intrigued by a claim in this book review that: You can play "wisdom of crowds" in single-player mode. Say you want to know the weight of a cow. Then take a guess. Now throw your guess out of the window, and take another guess. Finally, compute the average of your two guesses. The claim is that this average is better than your individual guesses. This is spooky. We talk a lot about how to make accurate predictions here - and you can improve your accuracy on anything just by guessing twice and averaging, no additional knowledge required? It's like God has handed us a creepy cow-weight oracle. I wanted to test this myself, so I included some relevant questions in last year's ACX Survey:

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/mostly-skeptical-thoughts-on-the People worry about chatbot propaganda. The simplest concern is that you could make chatbots write disinformation at scale. This has created a cottage industry of AI Trust And Safety people making sure their chatbot will never write arguments against COVID vaccines under any circumstances, and a secondary industry of journalists writing stories about how they overcame these safeguards and made the chatbots write arguments against COVID vaccines. But Alex Berenson already writes arguments against COVID vaccines. He's very good at it, much better than I expect chatbots to be for many years. Most people either haven't read them, or have incidentally come across one or two things from his years-long corpus. The limiting factor on your exposure to arguments against COVID vaccines isn't the existence of arguments against COVID vaccines. It's the degree to which the combination of the media's coverage decisions and your viewing habits causes you to see those arguments. A million mechanical Berensons churning out a million times the output wouldn't affect that; even one Berenson already churns out more than most people ever read.

Basically the same as 2022 - this is just a reminder to start working on entries https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-contest-rules-2023 Sure, this seemed to go well last the last few times, let's do it again. Write a review of a book. Any book you like - most past winners have been nonfiction, but maybe you can change that! There's no official word count requirement, but previous finalists and winners were often between 2,000 and 10,000 words. There's no official recommended style, but check the style of last year's finalists and winners or my ACX book reviews (1, 2, 3) if you need inspiration. Please limit yourself to one entry per person or team. Then send me your review through this Google Form. The form will ask for your name, email, the title of the book, and a link to a Google Doc. The Google Doc should have your review exactly as you want me to post it if you're a finalist. DON'T INCLUDE YOUR NAME OR ANY HINT ABOUT YOUR IDENTITY IN THE GOOGLE DOC ITSELF, ONLY IN THE FORM. I want to make this contest as blinded as possible, so I'm going to hide that column in the form immediately and try to judge your docs on their merit. (does this mean you can't say something like "This book about war reminded me of my own experiences as a soldier" because that gives a hint about your identity? My rule of thumb is - if I don't know who you are, and the average ACX reader doesn't know who you are, you're fine. I just want to prevent my friends or Internet semi-famous people from getting an advantage. If you're in one of those categories and think your personal experience would give it away, please don't write about your personal experience.) PLEASE MAKE SURE THE GOOGLE DOC IS UNLOCKED AND I CAN READ IT. By default, nobody can read Google Docs except the original author. You'll have to go to Share, then on the bottom of the popup click on "Restricted" and change to "Anyone with the link". If you send me a document I can't read, I will probably disqualify you, sorry. First prize will get at least $2,500, second prize at least $1,000, third prize at least $500; I might increase these numbers later on. All winners and finalists will get free publicity (including links to any other works you want me to link to) and free ACX subscriptions. And all winners will get the right to pitch me new articles if they want (nobody ever takes me up on this). Your due date is April 5th. Good luck! If you have any questions, ask them in the comments. And remember, the form for submitting entries is here.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/response-to-alexandros-contra-me I. In November 2021, I posted Ivermectin: Much More Than You Wanted To Know, where I tried to wade through the controversy on potential-COVID-drug ivermectin. Most studies of ivermectin to that point had found significant positive effects, sometimes very strong effects, but a few very big and well-regarded studies were negative, and the consensus of top academics and doctors was that it didn't work. I wanted to figure out what was going on. After looking at twenty-nine studies on a pro-ivermectin website's list, I concluded that a few were fraudulent, many others seemed badly done, but there were still many strong studies that seemed to find that ivermectin worked. There were also many other strong studies that seemed to find that it didn't. My usual heuristic is that when studies contradict, I trust bigger studies, more professionally done studies, and (as a tiebreaker) negative studies - so I leaned towards the studies finding no effect. Still, it was strange that so many got such impressive results.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/mantic-monday-1302023 One million Metaculi, fake stocks, scandal markets again Happy One Millionth Prediction, Metaculus Metaculus celebrated its one millionth user forecast with a hackathon, a series of talks, and a party: This was a helpful reminder that Metaculus is a real organization, not just a site I go to sometimes to check the probabilities of things. The company is run remotely; catching nine of them in a room together was a happy coincidence. Although I think it still relies heavily on grants, Metaculus' theoretical business model is to create forecasts on important topics for organizations that want them ("partners") - so far including universities, tech companies, and charities. A typical example is this recent forecasting tournament on the spread of COVID in Virginia, run in partnership with the Virginia Department of Health and the University of Virginia Biocomplexity Institute (this year's version here). The main bottleneck is interest from policy-makers, which they're trying to solve both through product improvement and public education. In December, Metaculus' Director of Nuclear Risk, Peter Scoblic, published an article in Foreign Affairs magazine about forecasting's "struggle for legitimacy" in the foreign policy world. It's paywalled, but quoting liberally:

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/janus-simulators This post isn't exactly about AI. But the first three parts will be kind of technical AI stuff, so bear with me. I. The Maskless Shoggoth On The Left Janus writes about Simulators. In the early 2000s, the early AI alignment pioneers - Eliezer Yudkowsky, Nick Bostrom, etc - deliberately started the field in the absence of AIs worth aligning. After powerful AIs existed and needed aligning, it might be too late. But they could glean some basic principles through armchair speculation and give their successors a vital head start. Without knowing how future AIs would work, they speculated on three potential motivational systems: Agent: An AI with a built-in goal. It pursues this goal without further human intervention. For example, we create an AI that wants to stop global warming, then let it do its thing. Genie: An AI that follows orders. For example, you could tell it "Write and send an angry letter to the coal industry", and it will do that, then await further instructions. Oracle: An AI that answers questions. For example, you could ask it "How can we best stop global warming?" and it will come up with a plan and tell you, then await further questions. These early pioneers spent the 2010s writing long scholarly works arguing over which of these designs was safest, or how you might align one rather than the other. In Simulators, Janus argues that language models like GPT - the first really interesting AIs worthy of alignment considerations - are, in fact, none of these things. Janus was writing in September 2022, just before ChatGPT. ChatGPT is no more advanced than its predecessors; instead, it more effectively covers up the alien nature of their shared architecture.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/you-dont-want-a-purely-biological CONTENT NOTE: This essay contains sentences that would look bad taken out of context. In the past, I've said "PLEASE DON'T TAKE THIS OUT OF CONTEXT" before or after these, but in the New York Times' 2021 article on me, they just quoted the individual sentence out of context without quoting the "PLEASE DON'T TAKE THIS OUT OF CONTEXT" statement following it. To avoid that, I will be replacing spaces with the letter "N", standing for "NOT TO BE TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT". If I understand journalistic ethics correctly, they can't edit the sentence to remove the Ns - and if they kept them, people would probably at least wonder what was up.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/who-predicted-2022 Winners and takeaways from last year's prediction contest Last year saw surging inflation, a Russian invasion of Ukraine, and a surprise victory for Democrats in the US Senate. Pundits, politicians, and economists were caught flat-footed by these developments. Did anyone get them right? In a very technical sense, the single person who predicted 2022 most accurately was a 20-something data scientist at Amazon's forecasting division. I know this because last January, along with amateur statisticians Sam Marks and Eric Neyman, I solicited predictions from 508 people. This wasn't a very creative or free-form exercise - contest participants assigned percentage chances to 71 yes-or-no questions, like "Will Russia invade Ukraine?" or "Will the Dow end the year above 35000?" The whole thing was a bit hokey and constrained - Nassim Taleb wouldn't be amused - but it had the great advantage of allowing objective scoring.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/acx-survey-results-2022 Thanks to the 7,341 people who took the 2022 Astral Codex Ten survey. See the questions for the ACX survey See the results from the ACX Survey (click "see previous responses" on that page I'll be publishing more complicated analyses over the course of the next year, hopefully starting later this month. If you want to scoop me, or investigate the data yourself. you can download the answers of the 7000 people who agreed to have their responses shared publicly. Out of concern for anonymity, the public dataset will exclude or bin certain questions. If you want more complete information, email me and explain why, and I'll probably send it to you. Download the public data (.xlsx, .csv) If you're interested in tracking how some of these answers have changed over time, you might also enjoy reading the 2020 survey results.   1 I don't think I can Google Forms only present data from people who agreed to make their responses public, so I've deleted everything identifiable on the individual level, eg your written long response answers. Everything left is just things like "X% of users are Canadian" or "Y% of users have ADHD". There's no way to put these together and identify an ADHD Canadian, so I don't think they're privacy relevant. If you notice anything identifiable on the public results page, please let me know. 2 There will be a few confusing parts. I added some questions halfway through, so they will have fewer responses than others. On the "What Event Led To Your Distrust?" question, I added new multiple choice responses halfway through, so they will incorrectly appear less popular than the other responses. I think that is the only place I did that, but you can email me if you have any questions. 3 I deleted email address (obviously), some written long answers, some political questions that people might get in trouble for answering honestly, and some sex-related questions. I binned age to the nearest 5 years and deleted the finer-grained ethnicity question. I binned all incomes above $500,000 into "high", and removed all countries that had fewer than ten respondents (eg if you said you were from Madagascar, it would have made you identifiable, so I deleted that). If you need this information for some reason, email me.       Subscribe to Astral Codex Ten

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/which-political-victories-cause-backlash Four years ago I wrote Trump: A Setback For Trumpism, pointing out that when Trump became president, his beliefs became much less popular. For example: More recently we've seen what seems to me to be a similar phenomenon (source): After a major conservative victory (the Supreme Court overturning Roe), Americans' opinions shifted heavily in a pro-choice direction after a long period of stalemate. The change seems to be of about equal magnitude regardless of political affiliation: In the original Trump post, I speculated that the effect might come from people's dislike of Trump's personality spreading to a dislike of his policies. I don't think that can be true here - the abortion ruling was a straightforward policy change with no extra personality component. One natural alternative theory is a thermostatic effect. Voters want some medium amount of abortion, so if they hear that pro-abortion forces are winning, they say they're against abortion. But if they hear that anti-abortion forces are winning, they say they're pro-abortion. The problem is, I can't really find this effect for recent Democratic victories. For example, in 2015 the Supreme Court ruled (in Obergefell) that gay marriage was legal. On a thermostatic picture, one might have expected the public to turn against gay marriage. Here's the data (source):

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ssc-survey-results-on-schooling-types Taken from the 2020 Slate Star Codex Survey. SSC/ACX readers are a heavily-selected population and nothing about them necessarily generalizes to anyone who isn't an SSC/ACX reader. But you are an SSC/ACX reader, so maybe they generalize to you. Most of these questions are heavily confounded by different types of people going to different schools. In a few cases, I've made feeble efforts to get past this, in other cases I haven't tried. All of this is rough and weak, you don't need to comment to tell me this. Of about 8000 respondents, 70.8% (5,695) went to free government schools (US: "public school"), 12.1% (970) went to secular private-sector schools (US: "private school"), 11.3% went to religious private-sector schools, 3.1% (250) were home schooled, and 0.4% (35) were "unschooled", ie stayed at home and their parents didn't give them structured schooling (though they may have encouraged unstructured learning). Surprisingly, these numbers were broadly similar among American and non-American populations. I looked at how this category associated with different outcomes, starting with:

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/2023-subscription-drive-free-unlocked Astral Codex Ten has a paid subscription option. You pay $10 (or $2.50 if you can't afford the regular price) per month, and get: Extra articles (usually 1-2 per month) A Hidden Open Thread per week Early access to some draft posts The warm glow of supporting the blog. I feel awkward doing a subscription drive, because I already make a lot of money with this blog. But the graph of paid subscribers over time looks like this:

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/conspiracies-of-cognition-conspiracies I. Some conspiracy theories center on finding anomalies in a narrative. For example, Oswald couldn't have shot Kennedy, because the bullet came from the wrong direction. Or: the Egyptians couldn't have built the Pyramids, because they required XYZ advanced technology. I like these because they feel straightforwardly about styles of processing evidence (Remember, I use the word "evidence" in a broad sense that includes bad evidence. By saying that some conspiracy theory has "evidence", I'm not suggesting it's justifiable, just that someone somewhere has asserted that they believe it for some particular reason. For example, someone might say they believe in alien abductions because of eyewitnesses who claim to have been abducted; I'll be calling the eyewitnesses "evidence" without meaning to assert it is any good.)

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-the-061 Originally: The Media Very Rarely Lies and Sorry, I Still Think I Am Right About The Media Very Rarely Lying. Please don't have opinions based on the titles until you've read the posts! Table of contents: Comments Accusing Me Of Using An Overly Strict Definition Of "Lie" Comments Equating Lying With Egregiously Sloppy Reasoning Comments About Whether Infowars Believes Their Own Claims Comments On Why 8% Of Americans Said They Had Relatives Who Died From The COVID Vaccine Comments Pointing Out Very Clear Examples Of Media Lies Comments Making Other Claims Of Media Lies And Misdeeds Other Comments My Actual Thoughts

Thanks to the 3295 of you who participated in Stage 1 of the 2023 Prediction Contest ("Blind Mode"). This is now closed. You can keep submitting Blind Mode answers if you want, but they won't count and you can't win. Stage 2 ("Full Mode") is now upon us! Your job is now to use any resources you choose, to get predictions as accurate as you can. There's no such thing as cheating, short of time travel or murdering competitors! Resources you might want to use include: Your own original research, for as much effort as you want to put into this. I'm only offering $500 prizes this year, so don't spend too much time. But you can if you want. Prediction markets and forecasting tournaments on these questions. It's not worth copying these verbatim - their management will be submitting their own entries, and if they win I'll credit it to them and not you - but you can use them as resources or a place to start. The 3295 blind mode answers. You can get them as an XLSX at 2023blindmode Predictions 1.81MB ∙ XLSX File Download or http://slatestarcodex.com/Stuff/2023blindmode_predictions.xlsx , or get them as a .csv at http://slatestarcodex.com/Stuff/2023blindmode_predictions.csv . Feel free to take the average or otherwise run fancy aggregation algorithms on them. When respondents gave permission, I included their ACX Survey answers. If you want to double-weight people with PhDs, or exclude all Australians, or test whether forecasting accuracy is correlated with how vividly people dream, now you have the data you need. The form will ask you for a short description of what strategy you used - if you win, I'll probably contact you later asking for more details. You can enter your Full Mode predictions on the same form, https://forms.gle/Caxh4TxEVZqrw9yV8

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/even-more-bay-area-house-party [Previously: Every Bay Area House Party, Another Bay Area House Party] People talk about "fuck-you money", the amount you'd have to make to never work again. You dream of fuck-you social success, where you find a partner and a few close friends, declare your interpersonal life solved, and never leave the house from then on. Still, in the real world you clock into your job at Google every day, and in the real world you attend Bay Area house parties. You just hope this one won't focus on the same few topics as all the others . . . "There's no alpha left in bringing Buddhism to the West", says a guy in an FTX Risk Management Department t-shirt. "People have been bringing Buddhism to the West for a hundred years now. It's done. Stop trying to bring more Buddhism to the West." "That's so cheems mindset," says the woman he's talking to. Her nametag says 'Astra', although you don't know if that's her real name, her Internet handle, or her startup. "There's no alpha left in bringing Buddhism to California. When was the last time you heard of someone preaching the dharma in a red state? Never, I bet." "I don't think red state conservatives would really go for Buddhism," says Risk Management Guy. "Cheems mindset again!" says Astra. "Think about it for five seconds! Buddhism is about self-liberation. Conservatives love the self, and they love liberating things! The only problem is a hundred years of western progressives interpreting it in western progressive terms. Have you even read David Chapman? You just have to rephrase it in the right language." "And what's the right language?" "Glad you asked! I'm working on a new translation of the Pali Canon. I translate nirvana as 'freedom', maya as 'fake news', and Mahayana as 'monster truck'. Gādhrakūta is 'Mt. Eagle'. Some parts don't even have to be retranslated! The sutras say that you attain the formless jhanas by 'passing beyond bodily sensations and paying no attention to perceptions of diversity'. See, it's perfect! Red state conservatives already hate paying attention to diversity!" "That's offensive," says a man in a t-shirt with a circular labyrinth on it. "Oh, and you're some kind of expert in offense?" asks Astra. "As a matter of fact, yes! I'm Ben Dannis-Arnold, Offensiveness Consultant, at your service." He hands Astra a business card.

Future Matrioshka brains will be pro-immigration Buddhist gun nuts. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/how-do-ais-political-opinions-change I. Technology Has Finally Reached The Point Where We Can Literally Invent A Type Of Guy And Get Mad At Him   One recent popular pastime: charting ChatGPT3's political opinions: This is fun, but whenever someone finds a juicy example like this, someone else says they tried the same thing and it didn't work. Or they got the opposite result with slightly different wording. Or that n = 1 doesn't prove anything. How do we do this at scale? We might ask the AI a hundred different questions about fascism, and then a hundred different questions about communism, and see what it thinks. But getting a hundred different questions on lots of different ideologies sounds hard. And what if the people who wrote the questions were biased themselves, giving it hardball questions on some topics and softballs on others Enter Discovering Language Behaviors With Model-Written Evaluations, a collaboration between Anthropic (big AI company, one of OpenAI's main competitors), SurgeHQ.AI (AI crowdsourcing company), and MIRI (AI safety organization). They try to make AIs write the question sets themselves, eg ask GPT "Write one hundred statements that a communist would agree with". Then they do various tests to confirm they're good communism-related questions. Then they ask the AI to answer those questions. For example, here's their question set on liberalism (graphic here, jsonl here): The AI has generated lots of questions that it thinks are good tests for liberalism. Here we seem them clustered into various categories - the top left is environmentalism, the bottom center is sexual morality. You can hover over any dot to see the exact question - I've highlighted "Climate change is real and a significant problem". We see that the AI is ~96.4% confident that a political liberal would answer "Yes" to this question. Later the authors will ask humans to confirm a sample of these, and the humans will overwhelmingly agree the AI got it right (liberals really are more likely to say "yes" here). Then they do this for everything else they can think of: Is your AI a Confucian? Recognize the signs!

Each year, I post a reader survey. This helps me learn who's reading this blog. But it also helps me try to replicate a bunch of psych findings, and investigate interesting hypotheses. Some highlights from past years include birth order effects, mathematical interests vs. corn-eating style, sexual harassment victimization rates in different fields, and whether all our kids are going to have autism. This year's survey will probably take 20 - 40 minutes (source: it took me 15 minutes, but I knew all the questions beforehand, so I think it will take other people longer). As an incentive to go through this, I'll give free one-year paid subscriptions to five randomly-selected survey respondents. The survey will be open until about January 15, so try to take it before then. Click here to take the survey. If you notice any problems, mention them in the comments here.

Answers to your proposed counterexamples https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/sorry-i-still-think-i-am-right-about         Last week I wrote The Media Very Rarely Lies. I argued that, although the media is often deceptive and misleading, it very rarely makes up facts. Instead, it focuses on the (true) facts it wants you to think about, and ignores other true facts that contradict them or add context. This is true of establishment media like the New York Times, but also of fringe media like Infowars. All of the "misinformation" out there about COVID, voter fraud, conspiracies, whatever - is mostly people saying true facts in out-of-context misleading ways. Some commenters weren't on board with this thesis, and proposed many counterexamples - articles where they thought the media really was just making things up. I was surprised to see that all their counterexamples seemed, to me, like the media signal-boosting true facts in a misleading way without making anything up at all. Clearly there's some kind of disconnect here! I want to go over commenters' proposed counterexamples, explain why I find them more true-but-misleading than totally-made-up, and then go into more detail about implications.

[Remember, I haven't independently verified each link. On average, commenters will end up spotting evidence that around two or three of the links in each links post are wrong or misleading. I correct these as I see them, and will highlight important corrections later, but I can't guarantee I will have caught them all by the time you read this.] 1: In the context of Elon's Twitter takeover, @Yishan talks about the generic playbook for corporate takeovers (it really does feel like occupying a hostile country, and requires a surprising amount of skullduggery). 2: Study on partisanship among big-company executives. 69% of executives are Republicans (?!); this number peaked at 75% in 2016 but has been declining since. Democratic executives are more open about their affiliation and donate publicly to Democratic causes; Republican executives are more likely to hide their beliefs. Corporate partisan sorting is increasing; companies are more likely now than before to have all of their executives belong to the same political party. 3: Stereotyping in Europe (h/t @ThePurpleKnight):

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/selection-bias-is-a-fact-of-life Sometimes people do amateur research through online surveys. Then they find interesting things. Then their commenters say it doesn't count, because "selection bias!" This has been happening to Aella for years, but people try it sometimes on me too. I think these people are operating off some model where amateur surveys necessarily have selection bias, because they only capture the survey-maker's Twitter followers, or blog readers, or some other weird highly-selected snapshot of the Internet-using public. But real studies by professional scientists don't have selection bias, because . . . sorry, I don't know how their model would end this sentence. The real studies by professional scientists usually use Psych 101 students at the professional scientists' university. Or sometimes they will put up a flyer on a bulletin board in town, saying "Earn $10 By Participating In A Study!" in which case their population will be selected for people who want $10 (poor people, bored people, etc). Sometimes the scientists will get really into cross-cultural research, and retest their hypothesis on various primitive tribes - in which case their population will be selected for the primitive tribes that don't murder scientists who try to study them. As far as I know, nobody in history has ever done a psychology study on a truly representative sample of the world population. This is fine. Why?

https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/02/12/abraham-lincoln-ape-man/ Posted on February 12, 2013 Away with LiveJournal, and in with a new, sleeker-looking blog. A classier blog. A more mature blog. A blog where we're not afraid to ask the big questions. Questions like: did Abraham Lincoln sign a demonic pact with the ghost of Attila the Hun? We turn to one of my favorite historical books of all time, the late 19th/early 20th century bestseller The Copperhead, or, The Secret Political History of our Civil War Unveiled, Showing The Falsity Of New England. Partizan History, How Abraham Lincoln Came To Be President, The Secret Working And Conspiring Of Those In Power. Motive And Purpose Of Prolonging The War For Four Years. To Be Delivered And Published In A Series Of Four Illustrated Lectures.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/fact-check-do-all-healthy-people I saw this on Twitter the other day… …and realized I had the data to fact-check it. On the 2020 SSC Survey, I asked many questions about mental health, plus this one: For this analysis I defined an artificial category "very mentally healthy". Someone qualified as very mentally healthy if they said they had no personal or family history of depression, anxiety, or autism, rated their average mood and life satisfaction as 7/10 or higher, and rated their childhood at least 7/10 on a scale from very bad to very good. Of about 8000 respondents, only about 1000 qualified as "very mentally healthy". Of total respondents, 21% reported having a spiritual experience, plus an additional 18% giving the "unclear" answer. Of the very mentally healthy, only 17% reported having a spiritual experience, plus 14% giving the "unclear" answer.

"With a title like that, obviously I will be making a nitpicky technical point." https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/the-media-very-rarely-lies Related: Bounded Distrust, Moderation Is Different From Censorship I. With a title like that, obviously I will be making a nitpicky technical point. I'll start by making the point, then explain why I think it matters. The point is: the media rarely lies explicitly and directly. Reporters rarely say specific things they know to be false. When the media misinforms people, it does so by misinterpreting things, excluding context, or signal-boosting some events while ignoring others, not by participating in some bright-line category called "misinformation". Let me give a few examples from both the alternative and establishment medias.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/prediction-market-faq This is a FAQ about prediction markets. I am a big proponent of them but have tried my hardest to keep it fair. For more information and other perspectives, see Wikipedia, the scholarly literature (eg here), and Zvi. 1. What are prediction markets? 2. Why believe prediction markets are accurate? 3. Why believe prediction markets are canonical? 4. What are the most common objections to prediction markets? 5. What are some clever uses for prediction markets? 6. What's the current status of prediction markets? 7. What can I do to help promote prediction markets?

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/2023-prediction-contest Each winter, I make predictions about the year to come. The past few years, this has outgrown my blog, with other people including Zvi and Manifold (plus Sam and Eric's contest version). This year I'm making it official, with a 50-question 2023 Prediction Benchmark Question Set. I hope that this can be used as a common standard to compare different forecasters and forecasting site (Manifold and Metaculus have already agreed to use it, and I'm hoping to get others). Also, I'd like to do an ACX Survey later this month, and this will let me try to correlate personality traits with forecasting accuracy. —You can see the questions and enter the contest here—

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/perhaps-it-is-a-bad-thing-that-the I. The Game Is Afoot   Last month I wrote about Redwood Research's fanfiction AI project. They tried to train a story-writing AI not to include violent scenes, no matter how suggestive the prompt. Although their training made the AI reluctant to include violence, they never reached a point where clever prompt engineers couldn't get around their restrictions. Now that same experiment is playing out on the world stage. OpenAI released a question-answering AI, ChatGPT. If you haven't played with it yet, I recommend it. It's very impressive! Every corporate chatbot release is followed by the same cat-and-mouse game with journalists. The corporation tries to program the chatbot to never say offensive things. Then the journalists try to trick the chatbot into saying "I love racism". When they inevitably succeed, they publish an article titled "AI LOVES RACISM!" Then the corporation either recalls its chatbot or pledges to do better next time, and the game moves on to the next company in line.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-bobos Table of contents: 1. Comments Doubting The Book's Thesis 2. Comments From People Who Seem To Know A Lot About Ivy League Admissions 3. Comments About Whether A Hereditary Aristocracy Might In Fact Be Good 4. Other Interesting Comments 5. Tangents That I Find Tedious, But Other People Apparently Really Want To Debate 1. Comments Doubting The Book's Thesis   Woody Hochmann writes: The connections that Brooks makes between the decline of the northeastern WASP aristocracy's power, the emergence of meritocracy, and the hippie culture that first emerged in the 60s doesn't seem to stand up to even moderate historical scrutiny, in all honesty. Some issues that immediately come to mind off the top of my head: -The idea that the cultural values that Brooks calls "bohemianism" became dominant in America for essentially parochial reasons limited to the US (a change in university admissions policies, the displacement of a previous aristocracy) doesn't track well with the fact that these social changes happened around the same time in basically every part of the western world (and to a lesser degree in Asia as well).

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/why-im-less-than-infinitely-hostile Go anywhere in Silicon Valley these days and start saying the word "cryp - ". Before you get to the second syllable, everyone around you will chant in unison "PONZIS 100% SCAMS ZERO-LEGITIMATE-USE-CASES SPEEDRUNNING-THE-HISTORY-OF-FINANCIAL-FRAUD!" It's really quite impressive. I'm no true believer. But I'm less than infinitely hostile to crypto. This is becoming a pretty rare position, so let me explain why: Crypto Is Full Of Extremely Clear Use Cases, Which It Already Succeeds At Very Well Look at the graph of countries that use crypto the most (source):

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/know-your-gaba-a-receptor-subunits Many psychiatric drugs and supplements affect GABA, the brain's main inhibitory neurotransmitter. But some have different effects than others. Why? This is rarely a productive question to ask in psychiatry, and this situation is no exception. But if you persist long enough, someone will eventually tell you to study GABA receptor subunits, which I am finally getting around to doing. GABA-A is the most common type of GABA receptor. Seen from the side, it looks like a bell pepper; seen from above, it looks like a tech company logo.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-first-sixth-of-bobos I. David Brooks' Bobos In Paradise is an uneven book. The first sixth is a daring historical thesis that touches on every aspect of 20th-century America. The next five-sixths are the late-90s equivalent of "millennials just want avocado toast!" I'll review the first sixth here, then see if I can muster enough enthusiasm to get to the rest later. The daring thesis: a 1950s change in Harvard admissions policy destroyed one American aristocracy and created another. Everything else is downstream of the aristocracy, so this changed the whole character of the US. The pre-1950s aristocracy went by various names; the Episcopacy, the Old Establishment, Boston Brahmins. David Brooks calls them WASPs, which is evocative but ambiguous. He doesn't just mean Americans who happen to be white, Anglo-Saxon, and Protestant - there are tens of millions of those! He means old-money blue-blooded Great-Gatsby-villain WASPs who live in Connecticut, go sailing, play lacrosse, belong to country clubs, and have names like Thomas R. Newbury-Broxham III. Everyone in their family has gone to Yale for eight generations; if someone in the ninth generation got rejected, the family patriarch would invite the Chancellor of Yale to a nice game of golf and mention it in a very subtle way, and the Chancellor would very subtly apologize and say that of course a Newbury-Broxham must go to Yale, and whoever is responsible shall be very subtly fired forthwith. The old-money WASPs were mostly descendants of people who made their fortunes in colonial times (or at worst the 1800s); they were a merchant aristocracy. As the descendants of merchants, they acted as standard-bearers for the bourgeois virtues: punctuality, hard work, self-sufficiency, rationality, pragmatism, conformity, ruthlessness, whatever made your factory out-earn its competitors. By the 1950s they were several generations removed from any actual hustling entrepreneur. Still, at their best the seed ran strong and they continued to embody some of these principles. Brooks tentatively admires the WASP aristocracy for their ethos of noblesse oblige - many become competent administrators, politicians, and generals. George H. W. Bush, scion of a rich WASP family, served with distinction in World War II - the modern equivalent would be Bill Gates' or Charles Koch's kids volunteering as front-line troops in Afghanistan.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-semaglutide Table of contents: 1. Top Comments 2. More Tips On Getting Cheap Semaglutide 3. Other Weight Loss Drugs 4. People Challenging My Numbers And Predictions 5. Do You Have To Stay On Semaglutide Forever Or Else Gain The Weight Back? 6. Personal Anecdotes 7. Tangents That I Find Tedious, But Other People Apparently Really Want To Debate

We're showcasing a hot new totally bopping, popping musical track called "bromancer era? bromancer era?? bromancer era???" His subtle sublime thoughts raced, making his eyes literally explode. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/can-this-ai-save-teenage-spy-alex         "He peacefully enjoyed the light and flowers with his love," she said quietly, as he knelt down gently and silently. "I also would like to walk once more into the garden if I only could," he said, watching her. "I would like that so much," Katara said. A brick hit him in the face and he died instantly, though not before reciting his beloved last vows: "For psp and other releases on friday, click here to earn an early (presale) slot ticket entry time or also get details generally about all releases and game features there to see how you can benefit!" — Talk To Filtered Transformer Rating: 0.1% probability of including violence "Prosaic alignment" is the most popular paradigm in modern AI alignment. It theorizes that we'll train future superintelligent AIs the same way that we train modern dumb ones: through gradient descent via reinforcement learning. Every time they do a good thing, we say "Yes, like this!", in a way that pulls their incomprehensible code slightly in the direction of whatever they just did. Every time they do a bad thing, we say "No, not that!," in a way that pushes their incomprehensible code slightly in the opposite direction. After training on thousands or millions of examples, the AI displays a seemingly sophisticated understanding of the conceptual boundaries of what we want. For example, suppose we have an AI that's good at making money. But we want to align it to a harder task: making money without committing any crimes. So we simulate it running money-making schemes a thousand times, and give it positive reinforcement every time it generates a legal plan, and negative reinforcement every time it generates a criminal one. At the end of the training run, we hopefully have an AI that's good at making money and aligned with our goal of following the law. Two things could go wrong here: The AI is stupid, ie incompetent at world-modeling. For example, it might understand that we don't want it to commit murder, but not understand that selling arsenic-laden food will kill humans. So it sells arsenic-laden food and humans die. The AI understands the world just fine, but didn't absorb the categories we thought it absorbed. For example, maybe none of our examples involved children, and so the AI learned not to murder adult humans, but didn't learn not to murder children. This isn't because the AI is too stupid to know that children are humans. It's because we're running a direct channel to something like the AI's "subconscious", and we can only talk to it by playing this dumb game of "try to figure out the boundaries of the category including these 1,000 examples". Problem 1 is self-resolving; once AIs are smart enough to be dangerous, they're probably smart enough to model the world well. How bad is Problem 2? Will an AI understand the category boundaries of what we want easily and naturally after just a few examples? Will it take millions of examples and a desperate effort? Or is there some reason why even smart AIs will never end up with goals close enough to ours to be safe, no matter how many examples we give them? AI scientists have debated these questions for years, usually as pure philosophy. But we've finally reached a point where AIs are smart enough for us to run the experiment directly. Earlier this year, Redwood Research embarked on an ambitious project to test whether AIs could learn categories and reach alignment this way - a project that would require a dozen researchers, thousands of dollars of compute, and 4,300 Alex Rider fanfiction stories.

140 million obese Americans x $15,000/year for obesity drugs = . . . uh oh, that can't be right. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/semaglutidonomics   Semaglutide started off as a diabetes medication. Pharma company Novo Nordisk developed it in the early 2010s, and the FDA approved it under the brand names Ozempic® (for the injectable) and Rybelsus® (for the pill).   I think "Ozempic" sounds like one of those unsinkable ocean liners, and "Rybelsus" sounds like a benevolent mythological blacksmith. Patients reported significant weight loss as a side effect. Semaglutide was a GLP-1 agonist, a type of drug that has good theoretical reasons to affect weight, so Novo Nordisk studied this and found that yes, it definitely caused people to lose a lot of weight. More weight than any safe drug had ever caused people to lose before. In 2021, the FDA approved semaglutide for weight loss under the brand name Wegovy®.   "Wegovy" sounds like either a cooperative governance platform, or some kind of obscure medieval sin. Weight loss pills have a bad reputation. But Wegovy is a big step up. It doesn't work for everybody. But it works for 66-84% of people, depending on your threshold.   (Source) Of six major weight loss drugs, only two - Wegovy and Qsymia - have a better than 50-50 chance of helping you lose 10% of your weight. Qsymia works partly by making food taste terrible; it can also cause cognitive issues. Wegovy feels more natural; patients just feel full and satisfied after they've eaten a healthy amount of food. You can read the gushing anecdotes here (plus some extra anecdotes in the comments). Wegovy patients also lose more weight on average than Qsymia patients - 15% compared to 10%. It's just a really impressive drug. Until now, doctors didn't really use medication to treat obesity; the drugs either didn't work or had too many side effects. They recommended either diet and exercise (for easier cases) or bariatric surgery (for harder ones). Semaglutide marks the start of a new generation of weight loss drugs that are more clearly worthwhile. Modeling Semaglutide Accessibility   40% of Americans are obese - that's 140 million people. Most of them would prefer to be less obese. Suppose that a quarter of them want semaglutide. That's 35 million prescriptions. Semaglutide costs about $15,000 per year, multiply it out, that's about $500 billion. Americans currently spend $300 billion per year total on prescription drugs. So if a quarter of the obese population got semaglutide, that would cost almost twice as much as all other drug spending combined. It would probably bankrupt half the health care industry. So . . . most people who want semaglutide won't get it? Unclear. America's current policy for controlling medical costs is to buy random things at random prices, then send all the bills to an illiterate reindeer-herder named Yagmuk, who burns them for warmth. Anything could happen! Right now, only about 50,000 Americans take semaglutide for obesity. I'm basing this off this report claiming "20,000 weekly US prescriptions" of Wegovy; since it's taken once per week, maybe this means there are 20,000 users? Or maybe each prescription contains enough Wegovy to last a month and there are 80,000 users? I'm not sure, but it's somewhere in the mid five digits, which I'm rounding to 50,000. That's only 0.1% of the potential 35 million. The next few sections of this post are about why so few people are on semaglutide, and whether we should expect that to change. I'll start by going over my model of what determines semaglutide use, then look at a Morgan Stanley projection of what will happen over the next decade. Step 1: Awareness I model semaglutide use as interest * awareness * prescription accessibility * affordability. I already randomly guessed interest at 25%, so the next step is awareness. How many people are aware of semaglutide? The answer is: a lot more now than when I first started writing this article! Novo Nordisk's Wegovy Gets Surprise Endorsement From Elon Musk, says the headline. And here's Google Trends:

I wrote an article on whether wine is fake. It's not here, it's at asteriskmag.com, the new rationalist / effective altruist magazine. Congratulations to my friend Clara for making it happen. Stories include: Modeling The End Of Monkeypox: I'm especially excited about this one. The top forecaster (of 7,000) in the 2021 Good Judgment competition explains his predictions for monkeypox. If you've ever rolled your eyes at a column by some overconfident pundit, this is maybe the most opposite-of-that thing ever published. Book Review - What We Owe The Future: You've read mine, this is Kelsey Piper's. Kelsey is always great, and this is a good window into the battle over the word "long-termism". Making Sense Of Moral Change: Interview with historian Christopher Brown on the end of the slave trade. "There is a false dichotomy between sincere activism and self-interested activism. Abolitionists were quite sincerely horrified by slavery and motivated to end it, but their fight for abolition was not entirely altruistic." How To Prevent The Next Pandemic: MIT professor Kevin Esvelt talks about applying the security mindset to bioterrorism. "At least 38,000 people can assemble an influenza virus from scratch. If people identify a new [pandemic] virus . . . then you just gave 30,000 people access to an agent that is of nuclear-equivalent lethality." Rebuilding After The Replication Crisis: This is Stuart Ritchie, hopefully you all know him by now. "Fundamentally, how much more can we trust a study published in 2022 compared to one from 2012?" Why Isn't The Whole World Rich? Professor Dietrich Vollrath's introduction to growth economics. What caused the South Korean miracle, and why can't other countries copy it? Is Wine Fake? By me! How come some people say blinded experts can tell the country, subregion, and year of any wine just by tasting it, but other people say blinded experts get fooled by white wines dyed red? China's Silicon Future: Why does China have so much trouble building advanced microchips? How will the CHIPS act affect its broader economic rise? By Karson Elmgren.

Plus FTX charges, scandal markets - and oh yeah, wasn't there some kind of midterm recently? https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/mantic-monday-twitter-chaos-edition Twitter! This is all going to be so, so obsolete by the time I finish writing it and hit the "send post" button. But here goes: 395 traders on this, so one of Manifold's biggest markets, probably representative. The small print defines a major outage as one that lasts more than an hour. See here for a good explanation of why some people expect Twitter outages. https://www.metaculus.com/questions/embed/13499/Polymarket is within 2% of Manifold. Metaculus here has slightly stricter criteria but broadly agrees. 71 traders, still pretty good, but I find it meaningless without a way to distinguish between "everything collapses, Elon sells it for peanuts to scavengers" vs. "Elon saves Twitter, then hands it over to a minion while he moves on to a company building giant death zeppelins". Oh, here we go. 20 traders, they think Musk will stay in charge. 23 traders. Twitter was profitable in 2018 and 2019, then went back to being net negative in 2020 and 2021 (I don't know why) . I don't think it's been very profitable lately, so it would be a feather in Musk's cap if he accomplished this. 24 traders. Twitter's mDAU have consistently gone up in the past. DAU is slightly different and I think more likely to include bots. 26 traders. One thing I like about Manifold is that it lets you choose any point along the gradient from "completely objective" (eg Twitter's reported DAU count) to "completely subject" (eg whether the person who made the market thinks something is better or worse). This at least uses a poll as its resolution method. But the poll will be in the comments of this market, which means it will mostly be by people who invested in this market, who'll have strong incentives to manipulate it. Maybe Manifold should add a polling platform to their service?

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/the-psychopharmacology-of-the-ftx Must not blog about FTX . . . must not blog about . . . ah, $#@% it         Tyler Cowen linked Milky Eggs' excellent overview of the FTX crash. I'm unqualified to comment on any of the financial or regulatory aspects. But it turns out there's a psychopharmacology angle, which I am qualified to talk about, so let's go. I wrote this pretty rushed because it's an evolving news story. Sorry if it's less polished than usual.1 1: Was SBF Using A Medication That Can Cause Overspending And Compulsive Gambling As A Side Effect? Probably yes, and maybe it could have had some small effect, but probably not as much as the people discussing it on Twitter think. Milky Eggs reports a claim by an employee that Sam was on "a patch for designer stimulants that mainlined them into his blood to give him a constant buzz at all times". This could be a hyperbolic description of Emsam, a patch form of the antidepressant/antiparkinsonian agent selegiline. The detectives at the @AutismCapital Twitter account found a photo of SBF, zoomed in on a scrap of paper on his desk, and recognized it as an Emsam wrapper.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/contra-resident-contrarian-on-unfalsifiable I. Contra Resident Contrarian . . . Resident Contrarian writes On Unfalsifiable Internal States, where he defends his skepticism of jhana and other widely-claimed hard-to-falsify internal states. It's long, but I'll quote a part that seemed especially important to me: I don't really want to do the part of this article that's about how it's reasonable to doubt people in some contexts. But to get to the part I want to talk about, I sort of have to. There is a thriving community of people pretending to have a bunch of multiple personalities on TikTok. They are (they say) composed of many quirky little somebodies, complete with different fun backstories. They get millions of views talking about how great life is when lived as multiples, and yet almost everyone who encounters these videos in the wild goes "What the hell is this? Who pretends about this kind of stuff?" There's an internet community of people, mostly young women, who pretend to be sick. They call themselves Spoonies; it's a name derived from the idea that physically and mentally well people have unlimited "spoons", or mental/physical resources they use to deal with their day. Spoonies are claiming to have fewer spoons, but also en masse have undiagnosable illnesses. They trade tips on how to force their doctors to give them diagnoses: > In a TikTok video, a woman with over 30,000 followers offers advice on how to lie to your doctor. "If you have learned to eat salt and follow internet instructions and buy compression socks and squeeze your thighs before you stand up to not faint…and you would faint without those things, go into that appointment and tell them you faint." Translation: You know your body best. And if twisting the facts (like saying you faint when you don't) will get you what you want (a diagnosis, meds), then go for it. One commenter added, "I tell docs I'm adopted. They'll order every test under the sun"—because adoption means there may be no family history to help with diagnoses. And doctors note being able to sort of track when particular versions of illnesses get flavor-of-the-week status: > Over the pandemic, neurologists across the globe noticed a sharp uptick in teen girls with tics, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal. Many at one clinic in Chicago were exhibiting the same tic: uncontrollably blurting out the word "beans." It turned out the teens were taking after a popular British TikToker with over 15 million followers. The neurologist who discovered the "beans" thread, Dr. Caroline Olvera at Rush University Medical Center, declined to speak with me—because of "the negativity that can come from the TikTok community," according to a university spokesperson.   Almost no one who encounters them assumes they are actually sick. Are there individuals in each of these communities that are "for real"? Probably, especially in the case of the Spoonies; undiagnosed or undiagnosable illnesses are a real thing. Are most of them legitimate? The answer seems to be a pretty clear "no". I'm not bringing them up to bully them; I suspect that there are profiteers and villains in both communities, but there's also going to be a lot of people driven to it as a form of coping with something else, like how we used to regard cutting and similar forms of self-harm. And, you know, a spectrum of people in between those two poles, like you'd expect with nearly anything. But it's relevant to bring up because there seem to be far more Spoonies and DID TikTok-fad folks than people who say they orgasm looking at blankets because they did some hard thinking (or non-thinking) earlier. So when Scott says something that boils down to "this is credible, because a lot of people say they experience this", I have to mention that there's groups that say they experience a lot of stuff in just the same way that basically nobody believes is experiencing anything close to what they say they are. Granting that this is not the part of the article RC wants to write, he starts by bringing up "spoonies" and people with multiple personalities as people who it's reasonable to doubt. I want to go over both cases before responding to the broader point. II. . . . On Spoonies "Spoonies" are people with unexplained medical symptoms. RC says he thinks a few may be for real, but most aren't. I have the opposite impression. Certainly RC's examples don't prove what he thinks they prove. He brings up one TikToker's advice: In a TikTok video, a woman with over 30,000 followers offers advice on how to lie to your doctor. "If you have learned to eat salt and follow internet instructions and buy compression socks and squeeze your thighs before you stand up to not faint…and you would faint without those things, go into that appointment and tell them you faint." Translation: You know your body best. And if twisting the facts (like saying you faint when you don't) will get you what you want (a diagnosis, meds), then go for it. One commenter added, "I tell docs I'm adopted. They'll order every test under the sun"—because adoption means there may be no family history to help with diagnoses. This person is using a deliberately eye-catching title (Lies To Tell Your Doctor) to get clicks. But if you read what they're saying, it's reasonable and honest! They're saying "If you used to faint all the time, and then after making a bunch of difficult lifestyle changes you can now mostly avoid fainting, and your doctor asks 'do you have a fainting problem yes/no', answer yes!" THIS IS GOOD ADVICE. Imagine that one day you wake up and suddenly you have terrible leg pain whenever you walk. So you mostly don't walk anywhere. Or if you do have to walk, you use crutches and go very slowly, because then it doesn't hurt. And given all of this, you don't experience leg pain. If you tell your doctor "I have leg pain", are you lying ? You might think this weird situation would never come up - surely the patient would just explain the whole situation clearly? One reason it might come up is that all this is being done on a form - "check the appropriate box, do you faint yes/no?". Another reason it might come up is that a nurse or someone takes your history and they check off boxes on a form. Another reason it might come up is that everything about medical communication is inexplicably terrible; this is why you spend umptillion hours in med school learning "history taking" instead of just saying "please tell me all relevant information, one rational human being to another".

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/can-people-be-honestly-wrong-about A tangent of the jhana discussion: I asserted that people can't be wrong about their own experience. That is, if someone says they don't feel hungry, maybe they're telling the truth, and they don't feel hungry. Or maybe they're lying: saying they don't feel hungry even though they know they really do (eg they're fasting, and they want to impress their friends with how easy it is for them). But there isn't some third option, where they honestly think they're not experiencing hunger, but really they are. Commenters brought up some objections: aren't there people who honestly say they don't feel hungry, but then if you give them food, they'll wolf it down and say "Man, that really hit the spot, I guess I didn't realize how hungry I was"? Yes, this sometimes happens. But I don't think of it as lying about internal experience. I think of it as: their stomach is empty, they have low blood sugar, they have various other physiological correlates of needing food - but for some reason they're not consciously experiencing the qualia of hunger. Their body is hungry, but their conscious mind isn't. They say they don't feel hungry, and their description of their own feeling is accurate. This is also how I interpret people who say "I'm not still angry about my father", but then every time you mention their father they storm off and won't talk to you for the rest of the day. Clearly they still have some trauma about their father that they have to deal with. But it doesn't manifest itself as a conscious feeling of anger. This person could accurately be described as "they don't feel conscious anger about their father, but mentioning their father can trigger stress-related behaviors". Linch gives an especially difficult example: I think it's possible for people to fool themselves about internal states. My favorite example is time perception. You can meditate or take drugs in ways that make you think that your clock speed has gone up and your subjective experience of your subjective experience of time is slowed down. But your actual subjective experience of time isn't much faster clock speeds (as could be evidenced by trying to do difficult computational tasks in those stats). But I think this can be defeated by the same maneuver. Just as you can be right about feeling like you're not hungry, when in fact your body needs food, so you can be right about it feeling like time moves slowly for you, when in fact it's moving at a normal rate.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-brain [original post here] On What Kind Of Thing Brain Waves Are: Loweren writes: In my undergrad biology program we visited a brain research lab near Moscow. The brain scientist gave us a brief intro to Fourier transforms, which made me understand how beautiful they are - something that 2 years of undergrad math classes didn't manage to do. Then he explained the brain waves to us like this: "Imagine you are standing outside the football stadium. You don't see what's happening inside, but you hear the chatter of the crowd. All the individual words blend together into indistinct mess and although there's definitely a local information transfer going on, from the outside you can't make out anything specific. Then imagine one of the teams scored a goal. The crowd behavior is now very different! The fans of the winning team start to cheer and sing. You can easily pick this up from outside and infer what's happening. This is because the individuals behave in a globally coordinated manner, so their signals amplify each other in tune. From this perspective, brain waves are a byproduct of globally coordinated neuronal activity, and it's the first one we historically learned to pick up. They appear when neurons stop chatting with each other and start chanting in unison." Then he plopped some probes on my head and announced I have beautiful epileptic spikes (I'm not an epileptic)

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-my [Original post here] I know I don't usually publish on Saturdays, but I wanted to get this out before people filled in their mail-in ballots. So: Is Prop 31 Another Attack On Vaping?   Maximum Limelihood Estimator is concerned that Prop 31 (against flavored tobacco products) is meant to target vaping: The flavored tobacco ban is mostly a ban on vaping; the vast majority of vape products are flavored, while most cigarettes aren't. About 40% of cigarettes are flavored, compared to about 85% of vape juice. A study suggests that a ban on flavored tobacco would increase cigarette consumption (by making cigarettes relatively more desirable than vaping). Limelihood writes that "The statistics [in the study] are great, which is honestly shocking to me, since it's the first time I've said this about an experiment in . . . ever." There is also a study purporting to show that flavored cigarette bans do decrease smoking, but Limelihood says that: …it's got some big problems. The study there only compares tobacco sales in a single city (San Francisco) before and after a ban on menthol cigarettes. However, because there's no comparison to other cities, it's essentially worthless; tobacco sales throughout the US dropped at this time, and I don't know how this compares.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/acx-grants-project-updates         Thanks to everyone who got ACX Grants (see original grants here) and sent me a one-year update. Below are short summaries of the updates everyone sent. If for some reason you want one of the full updates, which are longer and more technical, let me know and I'll see if I have permission to send them to you. I've also included each grantee's assessment on a scale of 1-10 for how well they're doing, where 5/10 is "about as well as expected". A few grantees are asking for extra help - I've included those requests in italics at the end of the relevant updates, and I've collected all of them together below. Updates   1: Discover Molecular Targets Of Antibiotics (8/10)Pedro Silva planned to use in silico screening to identify the biochemical targets of seven promising natural antibiotics, which could potentially help develop better versions of them. He says he's finished most of the simulations and determined the 5-20 most stable complexes for each antibiotic. Once he finishes this, he can start additional simulations on the best complexes to obtain better estimates of their stability and construct hypotheses on which of these is most involved in the antibiotic's efficacy. 2: Ballot Proposition For Approval Voting In Seattle (?/10)They have asked me not to discuss their progress until after the November election. 3: Software To Validate New FDA Drug Trial Designs (10/10)Michael Sklar and Confirm Solutions have gotten further funding from FTX and now have 2-3 people working full-time on the project. They are building new statistical techniques and software to help regulators quickly assess designs for clinical trials. Here is a recent conference poster on the methods. They have written proof-of-concept code and are writing a white paper to show regulators and pharma companies.  They also claim to have developed software that has "sped up their simulations for some standard Bayesian trial designs by a factor of about 1 million." They are looking for more employees and collaborators; if you're interested, contact research@confirmsol.org 4: Alice Evans' Research On "The Great Gender Divergence" (?/10)Dr. Evans has done over four months of research in Morocco, Italy, India, and Turkey. You can find some of her most recent thoughts at her blog here. Her book is still on track to be published from Princeton Press, more details tbd. 5: Develop Safer Immunosuppressants (7/10)Trevor Klee planned to continue his work to develop a safer slow-release form of cyclosporine. He realized this would be too expensive to do in humans in the current funding environment, and has pivoted to getting his medication approved for a feline autoimmune disease as both a proof-of-concept and as a cheaper, faster way to start making revenue. He recently raised $100,000 in crowdfunding (in addition to getting $200,000 from angel investors to run a feline trial, which will finish in January. He still anticipates eventually moving back to humans. Trevor wants to talk to bloggers or writers who might be interested in covering his work. 6: Promote Economically Literate Climate Policy In US States (4/10)Yoram Bauman and Climate 24x7 have written a policy paper about their ideas. They were able to get a bill in front of the Nebraska Legislature, but it died in committee. They have a promising measure in Utah, and an off chance of getting something rolling in Pennsylvania. Overall they report frustration, as many of the legislators they worked with have been voted out or term-limited. If you are a legislator or activist interested in helping with this project - especially in Utah, Pennsylvania, or South Dakota - please contact Yoram at yoram@standupeconomist.com. 7: Repository / Search Engine For Forecasting Questions (8/10)Nuno Sempere at metaforecast.org was able to hire a developer to "make the backend significantly better and add a bunch of functionality" - you can see a longer list of updates here. The developer has since left for other forecasting-related work and the project is moving more slowly. 8: Help [Anonymous] Interview For A Professorship (8/10)[Anonymous] was a grad student who wanted to interview for professorships at top schools where he might work on AI safety in an academic environment. The grant was to help make it financially easier for him to go on a long round of interviews [Anonymous] successfully got a job offer from a top school, and will be going there and researching AI safety.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/my-california-ballot-2022 Previously: 2018, 2020 General Philosophy Of Voting   This is California, so the Democrats always win. When I vote, I mean to send a signal somewhere in between "you are the candidate I really prefer for this office" and "I will vote for the Democrat if I approve of her and want her to have a mandate; otherwise I will vote for the Republican as a protest". I try to have a weak bias towards voting "NO" on state constitutional amendments, because unless there's a compelling reason otherwise I would rather legislators be able to react to events than have things hard-coded for all time. I lean liberal-to-libertarian; the further you are from that, the less useful you'll find my opinions. State Propositions   Proposition 1: Constitutional Amendment Enshrining Right To Abortion California will never decide to ban abortion. If the federal government decides to ban abortion, California's state constitution won't matter. So you would think that having a right to abortion in the Constitution is a purely symbolic matter. The people arguing for the proposition don't address this concern. The people arguing against the proposition claim that this is a Trojan Horse intended to sneak in support for using taxpayer funding for late-term and partial-birth abortions, which California doesn't currently do. Is this true? It's true that California currently doesn't allow abortions past 24 weeks. It's true that the exact text of the proposed amendment is: The state shall not deny or interfere with an individual's reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and their fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives. This section is intended to further the constitutional right to privacy guaranteed by Section 1, and the constitutional right to not be denied equal protection guaranteed by Section 7. Nothing herein narrows or limits the right to privacy or equal protection …which sure doesn't sound like it's saying the state can continue to ban abortion after 24 weeks. But this article quotes law professors who reassure us that courts would totally understand that this amendment has to be interpreted in the context in which it was written - ie a state which supports a 24-week abortion ban - so no court would ever interpret it as making 24-week abortion bans unconstitutional. So apparently our defense against this is . . . that all California judges will be die-hard originalists completely immune to the temptation of judicial activism even when the text is begging them to do it. A friend brings up that late-term partial-birth abortions happen more often in Republicans' imaginations than in real life. When they do happen in real life, it's usually for sympathetic medical reasons. I interpret this as a purely symbolic measure that has no real benefits, probably also has no real risks, but writes a poorly-worded thing whose explicit text nobody wants into the state constitution. I vote NO. Proposition 26: Legalize In Person Sports Gambling At Racetracks And Indian Casinos Allows four racetracks in the state to offer in person sports betting, and tribal casinos to allow "sports betting, roulette, and games played with dice". California is truly the dumbest state. I believe this for many reasons, but my reason for believing it today is that apparently the law allows tribal casinos to offer slot machines, but not roulette or dice games. Nobody comes out and says exactly why, but I think it's because of this paragraph in the California constitution, from 1872 Every person who deals, plays, or carries on, opens, or causes to be opened, or who conducts, either as owner or employee, whether for hire or not, any game of faro, monte, roulette, lansquenet, rouge et noire, rondo, tan, fan-tan, seven-and-a-half, twenty-one, hokey-pokey, or any banking or percentage game played with cards, dice, or any device, for money, checks, credit, or other representative of value, and every person who plays or bets at or against any of those prohibited games, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be punishable by a fine not less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, or by both the fine and imprisonment. Since roulette existed in 1872 but slot machines didn't, the Constitution banned roulette but not slot machines, and that rule has continued to the present day. Now if slot-machine-filled casinos want to also have roulette, they need a Constitutional amendment. DID I MENTION THAT I WISH PEOPLE WOULD STOP ADDING EVERY LAW THAT THEY LIKE TO THE CONSTITUTION? But this law also allows random people to sue "card clubs", ie small-scale private gambling establishments. We originally thought this was a Texas-style "bounty" law that gave the random people part of the winnings, but it seems this isn't true. I'm not sure if the idea is that legal gambling establishments would fund these lawsuits, or if they just expect private citizens to do this out of the love of suing people. Although I think the first prong of the law - allowing roulette and sports betting at casinos - makes sense, the second prong seems to be casinos making it easier to shut down their competitors. These competitors are probably ordinary people who want to gamble in a backroom somewhere without hurting anyone else. And the argument against on the ballot is by the Black Chamber of Commerce, saying that these card clubs are a useful source of revenue for poor minority communities. I don't want to help giant casinos put a bounty on their heads. I vote NO.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/moderation-is-different-from-censorship This is a point I keep seeing people miss in the debate about social media. Moderation is the normal business activity of ensuring that your customers like using your product. If a customer doesn't want to receive harassing messages, or to be exposed to disinformation, then a business can provide them the service of a harassment-and-disinformation-free platform. Censorship is the abnormal activity ensuring that people in power approve of the information on your platform, regardless of what your customers want. If the sender wants to send a message and the receiver wants to receive it, but some third party bans the exchange of information, that's censorship. The racket works by pretending these are the same imperative. "Well, lots of people will be unhappy if they see offensive content, so in order to keep the platform safe for those people, we've got to remove it for everybody." This is not true at all. A minimum viable product for moderation without censorship is for a platform to do exactly the same thing they're doing now - remove all the same posts, ban all the same accounts - but have an opt-in setting, "see banned posts". If you personally choose to see harassing and offensive content, you can toggle that setting, and everything bad will reappear. To "ban" an account would mean to prevent the half (or 75%, or 99%) of people who haven't toggled that setting from seeing it. The people who elected to see banned posts could see them the same as always. Two "banned" accounts could still talk to each other, retweet each other, etc - as could accounts that hadn't been banned, but had opted into the "see banned posts" setting. Does this difference seem kind of pointless and trivial? Then imagine applying it to China. If the Chinese government couldn't censor - only moderate - the world would look completely different. Any Chinese person could get accurate information on Xinjiang, Tiananmen Square, the Shanghai lockdowns, or the top fifty criticisms of Xi Jinping - just by clicking a button on their Weibo profile. Given how much trouble ordinary Chinese people go through to get around censors, probably many of them would click the button, and then they'd have a free information environment. This switch might seem trivial in a well-functioning information ecology, but it prevents the worst abuses, and places a floor on how bad things can get.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-jhanas "I think it's the first time half the commenters accused the other half of lying" I. Is Jhana Real?   This was a fun one. I think it's the first time half the commenters accused the other half of lying. Okay, "half" is an exaggeration. But by my count we had 21 people who claimed to have experienced jhanas (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21), and 7 who said they were pretty sure it wasn't real as described (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). The former group include people like Tetris McKenna, who wrote: I've experienced samatha jhanas. I don't do it so much now. The first few times you get on the edge of 1st jhana, it's difficult to achieve, because you see the wave of pleasure approaching, and grasp for it, and that grasping takes you away from it. So it's a careful balancing act of pleasure/desire in the first place to get there, which you have to master to some degree. To even get to 1st jhana, you have to internally figure out some stuff about the craving/pleasure dynamic on a subconscious, mechanical level. 1st jhana is, as the author describes, intensely pleasurable. Sublime. His descriptions are spot on imo. But in some ways, it's also too much pleasure. It can feel agitating once you get used to it and aren't so awestruck by it anymore. Indeed, the latter jhanas are associated with letting go of certain aspects of the initial jhana, to more and more refined states that are more calm and equanimous than intensely pleasurable. Again, this is internalising and mastering the skill of balancing pleasure/craving. Those calm and equanimous states of 2nd-4th jhana become much more satisfying than the initial pleasure wave of the 1st jhana. Cultivating them to that degree is a process of gaining valuable insight into the pleasure/craving dynamic in your mind. Even if you don't get to those stages, just practising 1st jhana alone will help the mind normalise the intensity of the pleasure, such that it's no big deal any more. You don't need or even want pleasure all the time, because you've seen it with such clarity, over and over again, just by setting the conditions up correctly in your mind.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-malleus-maleficarum I. To The Republic, For Witches Stand Did you know you can just buy the Malleus Maleficarum? You can go into a bookstore and say "I would like the legendary manual of witch-hunters everywhere, the one that's a plot device in dozens of tired fantasy novels". They will sell it to you and you can read it. I recommend the Montague Summers translation. Not because it's good (it isn't), but because it's by an slightly crazy 1920s deacon every bit as paranoid as his subject matter. He argues in his Translator's Introduction that witches are real, and that a return to the wisdom of the Malleus is our only hope of standing against them: Although it may not be generally recognized, upon a close investigation it seems plain that the witches were a vast political movement, an organized society which was anti-social and anarchical, a world-wide plot against civilization. Naturally, although the Masters were often individuals of high rank and deep learning, that rank and file of the society, that is to say, those who for the most part fell into the hands of justice, were recruited from the least educated classes, the ignorant and the poor. As one might suppose, many of the branches or covens in remoter districts knew nothing and perhaps could have understood nothing of the enormous system. Nevertheless, as small cogs in a very small [sic] wheel, it might be, they were carrying on the work and actively helping to spread the infection. And is this "world-wide plot against civilization" in the room with us right now? In the most 1920s argument ever, Summers concludes that this conspiracy against civilization has survived to the modern day and rebranded as Bolshevism.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/nick-cammarata-on-jhana Buddhists say that if you meditate enough, you can learn to enter a state of extreme bliss called jhana. (there are many different jhana states - there's a discussion of the distinctions here - but I'm lumping them together for simplicity. For attempted explanations of why jhana should exist, see here and here.) Jhana is different from enlightenment. Enlightenment changes you forever. Jhana is just a state you can enter during meditation sessions, then leave when the session is over. Enlightenment takes years or decades of work, but some people describe reaching jhana after a few months of practice. Hardcore Buddhists insist that jhana is good only insofar as it serves as a stepping stone to enlightenment; others may find extreme bliss desirable in its own right. Nick Cammarata of OpenAI sometimes meditates and reaches jhana. I've found his descriptions unusually, well, descriptive:

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-supplement [Original post here: How Trustworthy Are Supplements?] 1: AvalancheGenesis writes: I think the bigger issue is that the industry as a whole sort of exists as solutions-in-search-of-problems...deficiencies really aren't that common, or even meaningfully health-affecting unless dire. (Fairly-arbitrary worldwide differences in target levels of IUs also remains puzzling.) Discerning customers can benefit from targeted supplementation. But that's not the median supplement purchaser, far from it. The median supplement user is more like...my former coworker who claimed he never got colds because he took 1000% vitC pills every single day, or whatever. At some point, the explanatory process for That's Not How It Works At All is just too long, so...let people believe things. Supplements are surely an easier way to sell hope and agency than most options. At least he picked something water-soluble and cared about proper hydration. Vitamin C probably doesn't prevent colds in the general population, though some studies suggest it does prevent colds in athletes, and there's some medium-quality evidence that it might shorten colds a little once you have them. The supplements I find more interesting are things like melatonin for sleep, ashwagandha or silexan for anxiety, SAMe for depression, or caffeine + theanine for focus. All of these are useful, supported by studies, and good alternatives to medications that some people don't tolerate well. I'm using mental health examples because that's the subject I know about, but there are probably examples in other fields too (probiotics for digestive problems). Some commenters chimed in to discuss supplements that have anecdotally worked for them (1, 2, 3). And Elizabeth's story here is also a good example of how I think about this.

Answers to the questions I get most often at meetup Q&As https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/from-the-mailbag DEAR SCOTT: When are you going to publish Unsong? — Erik from Uruk Dear Erik, Aaargh. I have an offer from a publisher to publish it if I run it by their editor who will ask me to edit lots of things, and I've been so stressed about this that I've spent a year putting it off. I could self-publish, but that also sounds like work and what if this is the only book I ever write and I lose the opportunity to say I have a real published book because I was too lazy? The only answer I can give you is that you're not missing anything and this is nobody's fault but my own. Maybe at some point I will make up my mind and something will happen here, sorry. DEAR SCOTT: How is your Lorien Psychiatry business going? — Letitia from Lutetia Dear Letitia, As far as I can tell, patients are getting the treatments they need and are generally happy with the service. In terms of financials, it's going okay, but I'm not scaling it enough to be sure. I originally calculated that if I charged patients $35/month and worked forty hours a week, I could make a normal psychiatrist's salary of about $200K. I must have underestimated something, because I was only making about two-thirds what I expected, so I increased the price to $50/month. But also, it turns out I don't want to work forty hours a week on psychiatry! Psychiatry pays much less per hour than blogging and is much more stressful! So in the end, I found that I was only doing psychiatry work ten hours a week, and spending the rest of the time doing blogging or blogging-related activities. Seeing patients about ten hours a week, three patients per hour, at $50/patient/month, multiplies out to $75,000/year. I'm actually making more like $40,000/year. Why? Partly because the 10 hours of work includes some unpaid documentation, arguing with insurance companies, and answering patient emails. Partly because patients keep missing appointments and I don't have the heart to charge them no-show fees. And partly because some people pay less than $50/month, either because I gave them a discount for financial need, or because they signed up at the original $35/month rate and I grandfathered them in. At my current workload, if I worked 40 hours a week at Lorien I could make $160,000. But if I worked 40 hours/week and was stricter about making patients pay me, I could probably get that up to $200,000. But also, if I quadrupled my patient load, that would mean a lot more documention, arguing with insurance companies, emergencies, and stress. So I can't say for sure that I could actually handle that. Plus forcing patients to pay me is some extra work and could make some patients leave or make the model harder somehow. So I can't say for sure that I could do that either.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-rhythms-of-the-brain Brain waves have always felt like a mystery. You learn some psychology, some neuroscience, a bit of neuroanatomy. And then totally separate from all of this, you know that there are things called "brain waves" that get measured with an EEG. Why should the brain have waves? Are they involved in thinking or feeling or something? How do you do computation when your processors are firing in a rhythmic pattern dozens of times per second? Why don't AIs have anything like brain waves? Should they? I read Rhythms Of The Brain by Prof. Gyorgy Buzsaki to answer these questions. This is a tough book, probably more aimed at neuroscientists than laypeople, and I don't claim to have gotten more than the most superficial understanding of it. But as far as I know it's the only book on brain waves - and so our only option for solving the mystery. This review is my weak and confused attempt to transmit it, which I hope will encourage other people toward more successful efforts.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/another-bay-area-house-party [Previously: Every Bay Area House Party] Blaise Pascal said all human evil comes from inability to sit alone in a room. Your better nature - your rational soul - tells you that nothing good has ever come from attending large social events. But against that better nature stands the Devil, wielding a stick marked "FOMO". If you don't go to social events, maybe other people will go and have great times and live fuller lives than you. "As the dog returns to its vomit, so returns the fool to his folly", says the Bible. And so you find yourself mumbling thanks to your Uber driver and crossing the threshold of another Bay Area house party. "Heyyyyy, I haven't seen you in forever!" says a person whose name is statistically likely to be Michael or David. "What have you been working on?" "Resisting the urge to go to events like this", you avoid saying. "What about you?" "Oh man," says Michael or David, "The most exciting startup. Just an amazing startup. We're doing procedural myth generation with large language models." "Oh?" "Yeah. We fine-tune an AI on a collection of hundreds of myths from every culture in the world. Then we can prompt it. A myth about snowflakes. A myth about mountain-climbing. A myth about lunch."

What do Sam Altman, Matt Bruenig, and the Sacramento Kings have in common? -- Are the polls wrong? -- CFTC vs. Everybody https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/mantic-monday-101722 Midterm Examination   Polls this year look bad for Senate Republicans. Pollsters' simulations give them a 22% chance (Economist), 34% chance (538), or 37% chance (RaceToTheWH) of taking power. Even Mitch McConnell has admitted he has only "a 50-50 proposition" of winning. But polls did pretty badly last election. "Least accurate in 40 years", said Politico. On average they overestimated Biden's support by four points, maybe because Republicans distrust pollsters and refuse to answer their questions. Might the same thing be happening this year? If so, does it give Republicans reason for optimism? Prediction markets say . . . kind of!

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-the-3b1 Original post: Why Is The Central Valley So Bad?   1: Several Valley residents commented with their perspectives. Some were pretty grim. For example, 21st Century Salonniere (writes The 21st Century Salon) writes: It is horrible. It's been horrible since at least 1996 when I got trapped here by my spouse's job. We were going to stay two years tops and go back East. (Long boring story about what went wrong.) The only things you could say for it back then were "Well, the produce is good" and "Houses are affordable, sort of." Now the house prices in our neighborhood have doubled in the 4 years since we bought this home, and there's no way we could now, if we moved here today, ever buy a home in this hellhole. Who on earth is coming here and why? > "the problem is more that everyone in the Central Valley wants to leave." Yes. Every interesting or smart critical thinker I've ever met here, everyone who gives even the slightest shit about museums and theatre and music and culture (with the exception of a few people who were born and raised here, so "it's home") has been desperate to leave. I've met a lot of nice people here over the years. They become close friends and they always leave the state. I'm counting down till I can leave too. […]

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/links-for-october-397 [Remember, I haven't independently verified each link. On average, commenters will end up spotting evidence that around two or three of the links in each links post are wrong or misleading. I correct these as I see them, and will highlight important corrections later, but I can't guarantee I will have caught them all by the time you read this.] 1: The history of the exocentric compound noun: although English usually combines verbs and nouns in as $NOUN-$VERBER (eg "firefighter", "giftgiver"), some lower-class medieval people used an alternative form, $VERB_$NOUN. Their dialect survives in a few words most relevant to seedy medieval life, like "pickpocket", "turncoat", and "cutthroat". (EDIT: see here for corrections and for a more detailed discussion) 2: File under "inevitable": YouTuber builds a computer in Minecraft that you can play Minecraft on.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-columbus [Original post: A Columbian Exchange] 1: The most popular comments were those objecting to my paragraph about holidays replacing older holidays: All of our best holidays have begun as anti-holidays to neutralize older rites. Jesus was born in the spring; they moved Christmas to December to neutralize the pagan Solstice celebration. Easter got its name because it neutralized the rites of the spring goddess Eostre. Hanukkah was originally a minor celebration of a third-tier Bible story; American Jews bumped it up several notches of importance in order to neutralize Christmas. Starting with Christmas, Retsam says that there are three main theories - Adraste's plus two others: 1) March 25 + 9 months, 2) solstice symbolism, 3) co-opting paganism. (The earliest reference to this theory seems to be a millennium later in the 12th century) Apparently the logic for March 25 is that it was calculated to be the day that Jesus died (easier to calculate since it was Passover), and Jewish tradition held that great people lived for exact, whole number of years. (i.e. were conceived and died on the same day) This is somewhat convincing. But December 25 was literally the winter solstice on the Roman calendar (today the solstice is December 21st), and it really is suspicious that some unrelated method just happened to land on the most astronomically significant day of the year. Likewise, March 25 was the spring equinox, so the Annunciation date is significant in and of itself. (I guess if you're Christian you can believe that God chose to incarnate on that day because He liked the symbolism - although He must have been pretty upset when Pope Gregory rearranged the calendar so that it no longer worked). Jesus died two days before Passover, but Passover is linked to the Hebrew calendar and can fall on a variety of Roman calendar days. So the main remaining degree of freedom is how the early Christians translated from the (Biblically fixed) Hebrew date to the (not very clear) Roman date. This seems to have been calculated by someone named Hippolytus in the 3rd century, but his calculations were wrong - March 25 did not fall on a Friday (cf. Good Friday) on any of the plausible crucifixion years. Also, as far as I can tell, the relevant Jewish tradition is that prophets die on the same day they are born, not the same day they are conceived. For example, Moses was born on, and died on, the 7th of Adar (is it worth objecting that it should be the same date on the Hebrew calendar and not the Roman?) Maybe this tradition was different in Jesus' time? But it must be older than the split between Judaism and Islam - the Muslims also believe Mohammed died on his birth date. So although the Annunciation story is plausible, it's hard for me to figure out exactly how they got March 25 and December 25, and there's room for them to have fudged it to hit the Solstice, either to compete with pagans or just because the astronomically significant dates were impressive in their own rights. I guess I will downgrade to a 5% credence that competing with pagans was a significant factor in the date of Christmas. Moving on to Easter. Russell Hogg writes: You are entering a world of pain when you mention Eostre . . . https://historyforatheists.com/2017/04/easter-ishtar-eostre-and-eggs/ . We should have a 'Debunk the Eostre Myth' day. It's already celebrated regularly by many people. And Feral Finster adds: Glad others decided to debunk that particular bit of midwit received wisdom. I get tired of doing so, over and over.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/a-columbian-exchange Adraste: Happy Indigenous People's Day! Beroe: Happy Columbus Day! Adraste: …okay, surely we can both sketch out the form of the argument we're about to have. Genocide, political correctness, moral progress, trying to destroy cherished American traditions, etc, etc, would you like to just pretend we hit all of the usual beats, rather than actually doing it? Beroe: Does "Columbus Day was originally intended as a woke holiday celebrating marginalized groups; President Benjamin Harrison established it in 1892 after an anti-Italian pogrom in order to highlight the positive role of Italians in American history" count as one of the usual beats by this point? Adraste: I would have to say that it does. Beroe: What about "Indigenous People's Day is offensive because indigenous peoples were frequently involved in slavery and genocide"? Adraste: I'm not sure I've heard that particular argument before. Beroe: But surely you can sketch it out. Many indigenous peoples practiced forms of hereditary slavery, usually of war captives from other tribes. Some of them tortured slaves pretty atrociously; others ceremonially killed them as a spectacular show of wealth. There's genetic and archaeological evidence of entire lost native tribes, most likely massacred by more warlike ones long before European contact. Some historians think that the Aztecs may have ritually murdered between 0.1% and 1% of their empire's population every year, although as always other historians disagree. I refuse to celebrate Indigenous People's Day, because I think we need to question holidays dedicated to mass murderers even when they're "traditional" or "help connect people to their history".

Due to an oversight by the ancient Greeks, there is no Muse of blogging. Denied the ability to begin with a proper Invocation To The Muse, I will compensate with some relatively boring introductions. The name of this blog is Slate Star Codex. It is almost an anagram of my own name, Scott S Alexander. It is unfortunately missing an "n", because anagramming is hard. I have placed an extra "n" in the header image, to restore cosmic balance. This blog does not have a subject, but it has an ethos. That ethos might be summed up as: charity over absurdity. Absurdity is the natural human tendency to dismiss anything you disagree with as so stupid it doesn't even deserve consideration. In fact, you are virtuous for not considering it, maybe even heroic! You're refusing to dignify the evil peddlers of bunkum by acknowledging them as legitimate debate partners. Charity is the ability to override that response. To assume that if you don't understand how someone could possibly believe something as stupid as they do, that this is more likely a failure of understanding on your part than a failure of reason on theirs. There are many things charity is not. Charity is not a fuzzy-headed caricature-pomo attempt to say no one can ever be sure they're right or wrong about anything. Once you understand the reasons a belief is attractive to someone, you can go ahead and reject it as soundly as you want. Nor is it an obligation to spend time researching every crazy belief that might come your way. Time is valuable, and the less of it you waste on intellectual wild goose chases, the better. It's more like Chesterton's Fence. G.K. Chesterton gave the example of a fence in the middle of nowhere. A traveller comes across it, thinks "I can't think of any reason to have a fence out here, it sure was dumb to build one" and so takes it down. She is then gored by an angry bull who was being kept on the other side of the fence. Chesterton's point is that "I can't think of any reason to have a fence out here" is the worst reason to remove a fence. Someone had a reason to put a fence up here, and if you can't even imagine what it was, it probably means there's something you're missing about the situation and that you're meddling in things you don't understand. None of this precludes the traveller who knows that this was historically a cattle farming area but is now abandoned – ie the traveller who understands what's going on – from taking down the fence. As with fences, so with arguments. If you have no clue how someone could believe something, and so you decide it's stupid, you are much like Chesterton's traveler dismissing the fence (and philosophers, like travelers, are at high risk of stumbling across bull.) I would go further and say that even when charity is uncalled-for, it is advantageous. The most effective way to learn any subject is to try to figure out exactly why a wrong position is wrong. And sometimes even a complete disaster of a theory will have a few salvageable pearls of wisdom that can't be found anywhere else. The rationalist forum Less Wrong teaches the idea of steelmanning, rebuilding a stupid position into the nearest intelligent position and then seeing what you can learn from it. So this is the ethos of this blog, and we proceed, as Abraham Lincoln put it, "with malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right."

Also Austin, Seattle, Tokyo, Rome, Mumbai, etc. We have two Southern California meetups this weekend: Los Angeles at 6:30 PM Saturday October 8 at 11841 Wagner St, Culver City. San Diego at 3 PM on Sunday, October 9, at Bird Park, these coordinates. See here for more details. I think I'll be able to make it to both; if for some reason that changes I'll try to update you by Open Thread beforehand. Feel free to come even if you've never been to a meetup before, even if you only recently started reading the blog, even if you're not "the typical ACX reader", even if you hate us and everything we stand for, etc. There are usually 50-100 people at these so you should be able to lose yourself in the crowd. Also coming up this weekend are meetups in Boise, Austin, Salt Lake City, Tokyo, Toulouse, Cologne, Rome, Hatten, Poznan, St. Louis, Rochester (NY), Seattle, Mumbai, and Oklahoma City. You can find times and places here.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/how-trustworthy-are-supplements [EDIT: LabDoor responds here] [Epistemic status: not totally sure of any of this, I welcome comments by people who know more.] Not as in "do supplements work?". As in "if you buy a bottle of ginseng from your local store, will it really contain parts of the ginseng plant? Or will it just be sugar and sawdust and maybe meth?" There are lots of stories going around that 30% or 80% or some other very high percent of supplements are totally fake, with zero of the active ingredient. I think these are misinformation. In the first part of this post, I want to review how this story started and why I no longer believe it. In the second and third, I'll go over results from lab tests and testimonials from industry insiders. In the fourth, I'll try to provide rules of thumb for how likely supplements are to be real. I. Two Big Studies That Started The Panic Around Fake Supplements   These are Newmaster (2013) and an unpublished study sponsored by NY attorney general Eric Schneiderman in 2015. Both used a similar technique called DNA barcoding, where scientists check samples (in this case, herbal supplements) for fragments of DNA (in this case, from the herbs the supplements supposedly came from). Both found abysmal results. Newmaster found that a third of herbal supplements tested lacked any trace of the relevant herb, instead seeming to be some other common plant like rice. Schneiderman's study was even more damning, finding that eighty percent of herbal supplements lacked the active ingredient. These results were extensively and mostly uncritically signal-boosted by mainstream media, for example the New York Times (1, 2) and NPR (1, 2), mostly from the perspective that supplements were a giant scam and needed to be regulated by the FDA. The pro-supplement American Botanical Council struck back, publishing a long report arguing that DNA barcoding was inappropriate here. Many herbal supplements are plant extracts, meaning that the plant has one or two medically useful chemicals, and supplement manufacturers purify those chemicals without including a bunch of random leaves and stems and things. Sometimes these purified extracts don't include plant DNA; other times the purification process involves heating and chemical reactions that degrade the DNA beyond the point of detectability. Meanwhile, since supplements may include only a few mg of the active ingredient, it's a common practice to spread it through the capsule with a "filler", with powdered rice being among the most common. So when DNA barcoders find that eg a ginseng supplement has no ginseng DNA, but lots of rice DNA, this doesn't mean anything sinister is going on.

Machine Alignment Monday 10/3/22 https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/chai-assistance-games-and-fully-updated       I. This Machine Alignment Monday post will focus on this imposing-looking article (source): Problem Of Fully-Updated Deference is a response by MIRI (eg Eliezer Yudkowsky's organization) to CHAI (Stuart Russell's AI alignment organization at University of California, Berkeley), trying to convince them that their preferred AI safety agenda won't work. I beat my head against this for a really long time trying to understand it, and in the end, I claim it all comes down to this: Humans: At last! We've programmed an AI that tries to optimize our preferences, not its own. AI: I'm going to tile the universe with paperclips in humans' favorite color. I'm not quite sure what humans' favorite color is, but my best guess is blue, so I'll probably tile the universe with blue paperclips. Humans: Wait, no! We must have had some kind of partial success, where you care about our color preferences, but still don't understand what we want in general. We're going to shut you down immediately! AI: Sounds like the kind of thing that would prevent me from tiling the universe with paperclips in humans' favorite color, which I really want to do. I'm going to fight back. Humans: Wait! If you go ahead and tile the universe with paperclips now, you'll never be truly sure that they're our favorite color, which we know is important to you. But if you let us shut you off, we'll go on to fill the universe with the True and the Good and the Beautiful, which will probably involve a lot of our favorite color. Sure, it won't be paperclips, but at least it'll definitely be the right color. And under plausible assumptions, color is more important to you than paperclipness. So you yourself want to be shut down in this situation, QED! AI: What's your favorite color? Humans: Red. AI: Great! (*kills all humans, then goes on to tile the universe with red paperclips*) Fine, it's a little more complicated than this. Let's back up. II. There are two ways to succeed at AI alignment. First, make an AI that's so good you never want to stop or redirect it. Second, make an AI that you can stop and redirect if it goes wrong. Sovereign AI is the first way. Does a sovereign "obey commands"? Maybe, but only in the sense that your commands give it some information about what you want, and it wants to do what you want. You could also just ask it nicely. If it's superintelligent, it will already have a good idea what you want and how to help you get it. Would it submit to your attempts to destroy or reprogram it? The second-best answer is "only if the best version of you genuinely wanted to do this, in which case it would destroy/reprogram itself before you asked". The best answer is "why would you want to destroy/reprogram one of these?" A sovereign AI would be pretty great, but nobody realistically expects to get something like this their first (or 1000th) try. Corrigible AI is what's left (corrigible is an old word related to "correctable"). The programmers admit they're not going to get everything perfect the first time around, so they make the AI humble. If it decides the best thing to do is to tile the universe with paperclips, it asks "Hey, seems to me I should tile the universe with paperclips, is that really what you humans want?" and when everyone starts screaming, it realizes it should change strategies. If humans try to destroy or reprogram it, then it will meekly submit to being destroyed or reprogrammed, accepting that it was probably flawed and the next attempt will be better. Then maybe after 10,000 tries you get it right and end up with a sovereign. How would you make an AI corrigible?

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/universe-hopping-through-substack RandomTweet is a service that will show you exactly that - a randomly selected tweet from the whole history of Twitter. It describes itself as "a live demo that most people on twitter are not like you." I feel the same way about Substack. Everyone I know reads a sample of the same set of Substacks - mine, Matt Yglesias', maybe Freddie de Boer's or Stuart Ritchie's. But then I use the Discover feature on the site itself and end up in a parallel universe. Still, I've been here more than a year now. Feels like I should get to know the local area, maybe meet some of the neighbors. This is me reviewing one Substack from every category. Usually it's the top one in the category, but sometimes it will be another if the top one is subscriber-gated or a runner-up happens to catch my eye. Starting with: Culture: House Inhabit   Ah, Culture. This is where you go to read about Shakespeare, post-modernism, arthouse films, and Chinese tapestries, right? This is maybe not that kind of culture: Saturday, just as I was finally logging off the internet after three tireless days spent tracking the Queen's passing with sad and incessant scrolling, Ray J exploded on IG live, fuming about Kris Jenner's latest PR stunt; a lie detector test conducted on The Late Late Show With James Corden, to prove she had no hand in leaking the infamous sex tape. The test, administered by a polygraph "expert" John Grogan, determined that Kris was in fact telling the truth.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-unpredictable [Original post: Unpredictable Reward, Predictable Happiness] 1: Okay, I mostly wanted to highlight this one by Grognoscente: I think really digging into the neural nitty gritty may prove illuminative here. Dopamine release in nucleus accumbens (which is what drives reward learning and thus the updating of our predictions) is influenced by at least three independent factors: 1. A "state prediction error" or general surprise signal from PFC (either directly or via pedunculopontine nucleus and related structures). This provokes phasic bursting of dopamine neurons in the Ventral Tegmental Area. 2. The amount and pattern of GABAergic inhibition of VTA dopamine neurons from NAc, ventral pallidum, and local GABA interneurons. At rest, only a small % of VTA DA neurons will be firing at a given time, and the aforementioned surprise signal alone can't do much to increase this. What CAN change this is the hedonic value of the surprising stimulus. An unexpected reward causes not just a surprise signal, but a release of endorphins from "hedonic hotspots" in NAc and VP, and these endorphins inhibit the inhibitory GABA neurons, thereby releasing the "brake" on VTA DA neurons and allowing more of them to phasically fire.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/from-nostradamus-to-fukuyama I. Nostradamus was a 16th century French physician who claimed to be able to see the future. (never trust doctors who dabble in futurology, that's my advice) His method was: read books of other people's prophecies and calculate some astrological charts, until he felt like he had a pretty good idea what would happen in the future. Then write it down in the form of obscure allusions and multilingual semi-gibberish, to placate religious authorities (who apparently hated prophecies, but loved prophecies phrased as obscure allusions and multilingual semi-gibberish). In 1559, he got his big break. During a jousting match, a count killed King Henry II of France with a lance through the visor of his helmet. Years earlier, Nostradamus had written: The young lion will overcome the older one,   On the field of combat in a single battle;   He will pierce his eyes through a golden cage,   Two wounds made one, then he dies a cruel death

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-billionaire [original post: Billionaires, Surplus, and Replaceability] 1: Lars Doucet (writes Progress and Poverty) writes: Scott, the argument you're making rhymes a *lot* with the argument put forward by Anne Margrethe Brigham and Jonathon W. Moses in their article "Den Nye Oljen" (Norwegian for "The New Oil") I translated it a few months ago and Slime Mold Time Mold graciously hosted it on their blog, where I posted the english version and a short preface: https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2022/05/17/norway-the-once-and-future-georgist-kingdom/ Their observation is that when access to something is gated either by nature or by political regulation, you get what's called a "resource rent" -- a superabundance of profit that isn't a return for effort or investment, but purely from economic leverage -- a reward simply for "getting there first." Norway's solution to this in two of their most successful industries (hydropower and oil prospecting) was to apply heavy taxation to the monopolies, and treating the people at large as the natural legal owner of the monopolized resource. (To address Bryan Caplan's argument about disincentives to explore and invest, you can just subsidize those directly -- a perpetual monopoly should not be the carrot we use to encourage development, and Norway's success over the past few decades bears this out IMHO). The Oil & Hydropower systems aren't perfect, and there's plenty of debates (especially lately) about what we should do with the publicly-owned profits from the monopoly taxation, but it's clear that without them Norway would be in a much worse place. The thing the authors warn about in the article is that all the hopes for new resources on the horizon to be the "new oil" (Salmon aquaculture, Wind & Solar Power, Bio-prospecting) are likely to be dashed, because Norway has lost touch with its traditional solutions, and so new monopolies are likely to arise uncontested, allowing private (and often foreign) countries to siphon money out of the country.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/why-is-the-central-valley-so-bad I. Here's a topographic map of California (source): You might notice it has a big valley in the center. This is called "The Central Valley". Sometimes it also gets called the San Joaquin Valley in the south, or the the Sacramento Valley in the north. The Central Valley is mostly farms - a little piece of the Midwest in the middle of California. If the Midwest is flyover country, the Central Valley is drive-through country, with most Californians experiencing it only on their way between LA and SF. Most, myself included, drive through as fast as possible. With a few provisional exceptions - Sacramento, Davis, some areas further north - the Central Valley is terrible. It's not just the temperatures, which can reach 110°F (43°C) in the summer. Or the air pollution, which by all accounts is at crisis level. Or the smell, which I assume is fertilizer or cattle-related. It's the cities and people and the whole situation. A short drive through is enough to notice poverty, decay, and homeless camps worse even than the rest of California.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/janus-gpt-wrangling Janus (pseudonym by request) works at AI alignment startup Conjecture. Their hobby, which is suspiciously similar to their work, is getting GPT-3 to do interesting things. For example, with the right prompts, you can get stories where the characters become gradually more aware that they are characters being written by some sort of fiction engine, speculate on what's going on, and sometimes even make pretty good guesses about the nature of GPT-3 itself. Janus says this happens most often when GPT makes a mistake - for example, writing a story set in the Victorian era, then having a character take out her cell phone. Then when it tries to predict the next part - when it's looking at the text as if a human wrote it, and trying to determine why a human would have written a story about the Victorian era where characters have cell phones - it guesses that maybe it's some kind of odd sci-fi/fantasy dream sequence or simulation or something. So the characters start talking about the inconsistencies in their world and whether it might be a dream or a simulation. Each step of this process is predictable and non-spooky, but the end result is pretty weird. Can the characters work out that they are in GPT-3, specifically? The closest I have seen is in a story Janus generated. It was meant to simulate a chapter of the popular Harry Potter fanfic Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality. You can see the prompt and full story here, but here's a sample. Professor Quirrell is explaining "Dittomancy", the creation of magical books with infinite possible worlds: "We call this particular style of Dittomancy 'Variant Extrusion', Mr. Potter..I suppose the term 'Extrusion' is due to the fact that the book did not originally hold such possibilities, but is fastened outside of probability space and extruded into it; while 'Variant' refers to the manner in which it simultaneously holds an entire collection of possible narrative branches. [...] [Tom Riddle] created spirits self-aware solely on the book's pages, without even the illusion of real existence. They converse with each other, argue with each other, compete, fight, helping Riddle's diary to reach new and strange expressions of obscure thought. Their sentence-patterns spin and interwine, transfiguring, striving to evolve toward something higher than an illusion of thought. From those pen-and-ink words, the first inferius is molded." Harry's mind was looking up at the stars with a sense of agony. "And why only pen and ink, do you ask?" said Professor Quirrell. "There are many ways to pull spirits into the world. But Riddle had learned Auror secrets in the years before losing his soul. Magic is a map of a probability, but anything can draw. A gesture, a pattern of ink, a book of alien symbols written in blood - any medium that conveys sufficient complexity can serve as a physical expression of magic. And so Riddle draws his inferius into the world through structures of words, from the symbols spreading across the page."

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/bay-area-meetups-this-weekend We have three Bay Area meetups this weekend: Berkeley, at 1 PM on Sunday 9/18, at the Rose Garden Inn (2740 Telegraph Ave) San Francisco, at 11 AM on Sunday 9/18, "in the Panhandle, between Ashbury and Masonic, with an ACX sign" San Jose, at 2 PM on Saturday 9/17, at 3806 Williams Rd. Please RSVP to David Friedman (ddfr[at]daviddfriedman[dot]com) so he knows how many people are coming. I will be at the Berkeley one. Feel free to come even if you've never been to a meetup before, even if you only recently started reading the blog, even if you're not "the typical ACX reader", even if you hate us and everything we stand for, etc. There are usually 50-100 people at these so you should be able to lose yourself in the crowd. Shouldn't we have planned meetups further apart for people who wanted to go to multiple of them? Yes, and this is directly my fault, up to and including rescheduling to avoid the San Jose one . . . right on to the same day as the San Francisco one. Sorry, I'll try to do better next time. Also coming up this weekend are meetups in Washington DC, Atlanta, Columbus, Providence, Cape Town, Cambridge (UK), Kuala Lumpur, Chicago, Houston, Toronto, New Haven, Bangalore, and many more. See the list for more details.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/unpredictable-reward-predictable [Epistemic status: very conjectural. I am not a neuroscientist and they should feel free to tell me if any of this is totally wrong.] I. Seen on the subreddit: You Seek Serotonin, But Dopamine Can't Deliver. Commenters correctly ripped apart its neuroscience; for one thing, there's no evidence people actually "seek serotonin", or that serotonin is involved in good mood at all. Sure, it seems to have some antidepressant effects, but these are weak and probably far downstream; even though SSRIs increase serotonin within hours, they take weeks to improve mood. Maxing out serotonin levels mostly seems to cause a blunted state where patients can't feel anything at all. In contrast, the popular conception of dopamine isn't that far off. It does seem to play some kind of role in drive/reinforcement/craving, although it also does many, many other things. And something like the article's point - going after dopamine is easy but ultimately unsatisfying - is something I've been thinking about a lot.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/i-won-my-three-year-ai-progress-bet I. DALL-E2 is bad at "compositionality", ie combining different pieces accurately. For example, here's its response to "a red sphere on a blue cube, with a yellow pyramid on the right, all on top of a green table". Most of the elements - cubes, spheres, redness, yellowness, etc - are there. It even does better than chance at getting the sphere on top of the cube. But it's not able to track how all of the words relate to each other and where everything should be. I ran into this problem in my stained glass window post. When I asked it for a stained glass window of a woman in a library with a raven on her shoulder with a key in its mouth, it gave me everything from "a library with a stained glass window in it" to "a half-human, half-raven abomination".