This is an automated rejection. No LLM generated, assisted/co-written, or edited work. An LLM-detection service flagged your post as likely to have been substantially written or edited by an LLM. We've been having a wave of LLM written, co-written, or edited work that doesn't meet our quality standards. LessWrong has fairly specific standards, and your first LessWrong post is sort of like the application to a college. It should be optimized for demonstrating that you can think clearly without AI assistance. See here for a more detailed explanation of our policy on using LLM generated content on LessWrong.

As such, we reject LLM generated posts. We also reject work that falls into some categories that are difficult to evaluate that typically turn out to not make much sense, which LLMs frequently steer people toward.*

"English is my second language, I'm using this to translate"

If English is your second language and you were using LLMs to help you translate, try writing the post yourself in your native language without any LLM assistance (for the writing itself) and using a different, preferably non-LLM translation software to translate it directly.

"What if I think this was a mistake?"

If you receive this rejection notice but think it was a mistake, if all 3 of the following criteria are true, you can message us on Intercom or at team@lesswrong.com and ask for reconsideration.

You wrote this yourself, without using LLMs to help you write or edit your content.
You did not chat extensively with LLMs to help you generate the ideas. (Using it briefly the way you'd use a search engine is fine. But, if you're treating it more like a coauthor or test subject, we will not reconsider your post.)
Your post is not about AI consciousness/recursion/emergence, or novel interpretations of physics.

If any of those are false, sorry, we will not accept your post.

* (examples of work we don't evaluate because it's too time costly: case studies of LLM sentience, emergence, recursion, novel physics interpretations, or AI alignment strategies that you developed in tandem with an AI coauthor – AIs may seem quite smart but they aren't actually a good judge of the quality of novel ideas.)

1

Untitled Draft

1

1

1