This post was rejected for the following reason(s):
No LLM generated, heavily assisted/co-written, or otherwise reliant work. LessWrong has recently been inundated with new users submitting work where much of the content is the output of LLM(s). This work by-and-large does not meet our standards, and is rejected. This includes dialogs with LLMs that claim to demonstrate various properties about them, posts introducing some new concept and terminology that explains how LLMs work, often centered around recursiveness, emergence, sentience, consciousness, etc. (these generally don't turn out to be as novel or interesting as they may seem).
Insufficient Quality for AI Content. There’ve been a lot of new users coming to LessWrong recently interested in AI. To keep the site’s quality high and ensure stuff posted is interesting to the site’s users, we’re currently only accepting posts that meet a pretty high bar.
If you want to try again, I recommend writing something short and to the point, focusing on your strongest argument, rather than a long, comprehensive essay. (This is fairly different from common academic norms.) We get lots of AI essays/papers every day and sadly most of them don't make very clear arguments, and we don't have time to review them all thoroughly.
We look for good reasoning, making a new and interesting point, bringing new evidence, and/or building upon prior discussion. If you were rejected for this reason, possibly a good thing to do is read more existing material. The AI Intro Material wiki-tag is a good place, for example.
This essay was originally published on my Substack. Crossposting here for the LessWrong community.
A quiet echo, hardened into grain
We tend to think of our lives as a collection of private experiences; our memories, our feelings, our wins. A curated archive of the self.
But your impact on the world is not defined by what happens to you. It is defined by the operating policy you write that others will copy. You are a manual to be used, more than a diary to be read.
Scalable Character
If that framing is true, then character is not just personal. It is replicable.
You are a prototype of a “way of being” that will be partially cloned by:
Your friends
People who hear your stories or see your work
Your kids / students / younger founders you mentor
Future AIs trained on humanity’s traces, including yours1
What really persists from you is not your memories or your feelings. It is the algorithm of how you respond to reality: how you handle fear, power, love, money, truth, status, boredom, failure, etc.
And because humans learn by imitation and culture transmits by copying, that algorithm will get copied, mixed and amplified.
Once character is something that gets copied, it stops being private. It becomes a system with feedback. An outer loop.
Propagation
The Outer Loop
Many operate with a myopic metric of impact, focusing on the direct visible outcomes. But “success” in the contemporary sense is a flawed metric: it captures results, not the rippling effect of character through the network. The true consequences are governed by a distant, external feedback loop. This shift in perspective has further implications:
1. Your worst moments are high-leverage training data. We are trained by both our victories and our failures, but the “edge cases” carry the most weight. It is easy to broadcast a clear signal when you are winning. It is much harder when you are afraid or humiliated.
When shit hits the fan, the gap between the character you want to have and the reaction you actually have is at its widest. That is why the recording light goes on. Everyone around you, and the models ingesting that data, is watching: “So, this is how we handle disaster.”
That recording gets reused. How you bridge that gap during a crisis becomes the manuscript for how those around you will handle their own storms. It evolves from a reaction into a trait, and that trait becomes a signal that others copy when they face their own storms.
2. The Arc of Invisibility. The biggest consequences of your life are invisible to you because of the lag between the signal and the result. You rarely get to see the true “outer loop”. A person who met you once might have shifted their trajectory by a mere 3° because of an interaction with you.
But in navigation, the 1 in 60 rule dictates that a 1° error results in being a mile off course after 60 miles. Over a lifetime, a 3° shift changes the destination by a continent.
Consider Ignaz Semmelweis. In 1847, he was ostracized for suggesting doctors wash their hands. He died in an asylum, believing he was a failure. He never saw the millions of lives his protocol would eventually save. A single degree of character hides a continent of consequences.
A single degree of character hides a continent of consequences
3.You are upstream of billions you will never meet: We exist in a matrix of connections where the complexity is too high to calculate. Books, tweets, gossip, a single introduction, a norm you set in a small group; these propagate like code in a giant distributed system. You are the node where the signal originates, but you do not control where it runs.
Engineering the Signal This is why it is critical to prioritize the person over the outcome alone. The chain of cause and effect in human networks is too chaotic to predict. You cannot engineer the butterfly effect2. You can only engineer the signal you emit into the storm. Harmonize it.
Harmonizing the Signal
One of the highest forms of character is working on harmonizing the signal you emit to the world. You are continuously emitting data into a complex matrix of humans (and now AIs). Every interaction, a text, a meeting, a moment of stress, is a transmission.
The discipline of character is to ensure that this signal actively improves the system it enters. This is done in two distinct ways:
1. Filtering the Noise(The Subtractive). First, identify the weak links in your history, the static, and refuse to extend them. Consider a moment of high friction, like a heated disagreement with a friend. The default path is to transmit the signal exactly as you received it: reacting to stress with snap judgment, defensive sarcasm, or looking for someone to blame. The harder discipline is to act as a noise-canceling wave. You absorb the shock entirely. You stop the cycle of emotional chaos before it passes through you to the next node.
2. Refining the Tone (The Additive). But damping the noise is only one aspect. You must also refine the quality of what you do broadcast. It is about intentionally adding coherence and grace to the network.
You want to represent and emit the values that you stand for. Whether it is integrity, courage, temperance, humility, wit, generosity, or curiosity or any of the hundreds of existing values. Walking the talk, or rather the ethos you uphold, is how you can add a positive resonance to the world.
And there are millions ways to do this: do the thing you fear. Show up when it’s inconvenient. Tell the truth when a lie would be smoother. Apologize quickly. Keep your word. Stay generous under stress etc.3
You are the architect of your own frequency. Work on the signal until it is clean enough, true enough, and elegant enough to be worth repeating. You want to be the force that harmonizes the resonance, not the one that amplifies the dissonance.
The wave remembers what the iron forgets
Rippling Through the Sands of Time
So if you remember one thing, remember that you are not just a node in the network of humans; you are a signal repeater. The quality of the signal is up to you.
Optimize for being copy-worthy, not comfortable. Live so that if it scales to millions of copies, the world gets better, not worse. Build a character worth echoing into the future.
