I also dislike many of the posts you included here, but I feel like this is perhaps unfairly harsh on some of the matters that come down to subjective taste; while it's perfectly reasonable to find a post cringe or unfunny for your own part, not everyone will necessarily agree, and the opinions of those who enjoy this sort of content aren't incorrect per se.

As a note, since it seems like you're pretty frustrated with how many of her posts you're seeing, blocking her might be a helpful intervention; Reddit's help page says blocked users' posts are hidden from your feeds.

Huh—that sounds fascinatingly akin to this description of how to induce first jhana I read the other day.

You have misunderstood a standard figure of speech. Here is the definition he was using: https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/to-be-fair (see also https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/to-be-fair, which doesn't explicitly mention that it's typically used to offset criticisms but otherwise defines it more thoroughly).

Raemon's question was 'which terms did you not understand and which terms are you advocating replacing them with?'
As far as I can see, you did not share that information anywhere in the comment chain (except with the up goer five example, which already included a linked explanation), so it's not really possible for interlocutors to explain or replace whichever terms confused you.

There's https://www.mikescher.com/blog/29/Project_Lawful_ebook (which includes versions both with and without the pictures, so take your pick; the pictures are used in-story sometimes but it's rare enough you can IMO skip them without much issue, if you'd rather).

I think "intellectual narcissism" describes you better than I, given how convinced you are that anyone who disagrees with you must have something wrong with them.

As I already told you, I know how LLMs work, and have interacted with them extensively. If you have evidence of your claims you are welcome to share it, but I currently suspect that you don't.

Your difficulty parsing lengthy texts is unfortunate, but I don't really have any reason to believe your importance to the field of AI safety is such that its members should be planning all their communications with you in mind.

Consensus.app is a search engine. If you had evidence to hand you would not be directing me to a search engine. (Even if you did, I'm skeptical it would convince me; your standards of evidence don't seem to be the same as mine, so I'm not convinced we would interpret it in the same way).

Having ADHD makes me well-qualified to observe that it does not give you natural aptitude at systems engineering. If you're good at systems engineering, that's great, but it's not a trait inherent to ADHD.

Evidence for the placebo effect is very bad. I shared two posts which explained at length why the evidence for it is not as good as popularly believed. The fact that you have not updated on them leads me to think negatively of your epistemics.

I agree that it's good to be skeptical of your beliefs! I don't think you're doing that.

You're probably thinking of the russian spies analogy, under section 2 in this (archived) livejournal post.

I do not think there is anything I have missed, because I have spent immense amounts of time interacting with LLMs and believe myself to know them better than do you. I have ADHD also, and can report firsthand that your claims are bunk there too. I explained myself in detail because you did not strike me as being able to infer my meaning from less information.

I don't believe that you've seen data I would find convincing. I think you should read both posts I linked, because you are clearly overconfident in your beliefs.

Good to know, thank you. As you deliberately included LLM-isms I think this is a case of being successfully tricked rather than overeager to assume things are LLM-written, so I don't think I've significantly erred here; I have learned one (1) additional way people are interested in lying to me and need change no further opinions.

When I've tried asking AI to articulate my thoughts it does extremely poorly (regardless of which model I use). In addition to having a writing style which is different from and worse than mine, it includes only those ideas which are mentioned in the prompt, stitched together without intellectual connective tissue, cohesiveness, conclusions drawn, implications explored, or even especially effective arguments. It would be wonderful if LLMs could express what I meant, but in practice LLMs can only express what I say; and if I can articulate the thing I want to say, I don't need LLM assistance in the first place.

For this reason, I expect people who are satisfied with AI articulations of their thoughts to have very low standards (or perhaps extremely predictable ideas, as I do expect LLMs to do a fine job of saying things that have been said a million times before). I am not interested in hearing from people with low standards or banal ideas, and if I were, I could trivially find them on other websites. It is really too bad that some disabilities impair expressive language, but this fact does not cause LLM outputs to increase in quality. At this time, I expect LLM outputs to be without value unless they've undergone significant human curation.

Of course autists have a bit of an advantage at precision-requiring tasks like software engineering, though I don't think you've correctly identified the reasons (and for that matter traits like poor confusion-tolerance can funge against skill in same), but that does not translate to increased real-world insight relative to allistics. Autists are prone to all of the same cognitive biases and have, IMO, disadvantages at noticing same. (We do have advantages at introspection, but IMO these are often counteracted by the disadvantages when it comes to noticing identifying emotions). Autists also have a level of psychological variety which is comparable to that of allistics; IMO you stereotype us as being naturally adept at systems engineering because of insufficient data rather than because it is even close to being universally true.

With regards to your original points: in addition to Why I don't believe in the placebo effect from this very site, literalbanana's recent article A Case Against the Placebo Effect argues IMO-convincingly that the placebo effect does not exist. I'm glad that LLMs can simplify the posts for you, but this does not mean other people share your preference for extremely short articles. (Personally, I think single sentences do not work as a means of reliable information-transmission, so I think you are overindexing on your own preferences rather than presenting universally-applicable advice).

In conclusion, I think your proposed policies, far from aiding the disabled, would lower the quality of discourse on Less Wrong without significantly expanding the range of ideas participants can express. I judge LLM outputs negatively because, in practice, they are a signal of low effort, and accordingly I think your advocacy is misguided.