You don't need to be smarter in every possible way to get radically increase in speed to solve illnesses. 

I think part of the motive of making AGI is to solve all illnesses for everyone and not just people who aren't yet born. 

Either increased adenosine production or decreased adenosine reuptake in fascia seems to be a plausible mechanism for the fatigue we observe in ME/CFS after sport. Adenosine is anti-inflammatory so there's reason for why the body might upregulate it for example when a COVID/lyme infection produces a lot of inflammation. It would explain the symptom of CFS. 

Someone should run the experiment of whether adenosine in fascial tissue is increased in those patients after exercise. 

A quick case for BGP: Effective reprogenetics would greatly improve many people's lives by decreasing many disease risks. 

Does this basically mean not believing in AGI happening between the next two decades? Aren't we talking mostly about diseases that come with age in people that aren't yet born so the events we would prevent are happening in 50-80 years from now, where we will have radically different medical capabilities if AGI happens in the next two decades?

Given that most of the models value Kenyan lives more than other lives, this is a quite interesting thesis that Kenyan language use drives LLM behavior here. 

I do think that using "It's" or "It is" is part of the pattern.

I made the change.

When it comes to medical questions, a patient might ask a chatbot medical question with the intent to solve their medical issue. On the other hand, someone might ask the chatbot a medical question to understand 

If I ask my friend "Do you think I should vaccinate my child?" I could be asking it because I want to make a decision about vaccination. I could also ask the question because I want to evaluate whether or not my friend is an antivaxxer. 

Most humans have an understanding that a lot of questions that are asked of them have the intention of evaluation whether they belong to the right tribe, and act accordingly. That's a pattern that the AI is going to learn from training on a large corpus of human data. 

We do have the existing concept of simulacrum levels, evaluation awareness is about guesses that the simulacrum level of a question isn't 1. 

If you look at your last post on LessWrong it starts with:

 "We are on the brink of the unimaginable. Humanity is about to cross a threshold that will redefine life as we know it: the creation of intelligence surpassing our own. This is not science fiction—it’s unfolding right now, within our lifetimes. The ripple effects of this seismic event will alter every aspect of society, culture, and existence itself, faster than most can comprehend."

The use of bold is more typical of AI writing. The ':' happens much more in AI writing. The emdash happens much more in AI writing, especially with "is not a X it's a Y".

Emdashes used to be a sign of high-quality writing where a writer is thoughtful enough to know how to use an emdash. Today, it's a sign of low-quality LLM writing. 

It's also much more narrative driven than the usual opening paragraph of a LessWrong post. 

The US system is build so that taking campaign donations is important to getting elected. It's not like for example the German system where politician can really on support of his party to get into parliament. 

If you want to affect the US politician system it's likely necessary to cooperate with politicians who do take donations to their campaign funds. 

It's also worth noting that that donations to PACs are probably worse than direct campaigns when it comes to lobbyist power.

A serious political engine could have money to defend against lawsuits, but, also, the more money you have, the more it's worth suing you. (I think at the very least having someone who specializes in handling all the hassle of getting sued would be worth it). 

This suggest that the organization that has the money to defend against lawsuits is not the same organization as the organization making the potentially libelous claims. 

There are broad organizations like Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) that can do that. You could also fund an organization that's more specific about defending people within your coalition.