I think more leaders of orgs should be trying to shape their organizations incentives and cultures around the challenges of "crunch time". Examples of this include:

• What does pay look like in a world where cognitive labor is automated in the next 5 to 15 years? Are there incentive structures (impact equity, actual equity, bespoke deals for specific scenarios) that can help team members survive, thrive, and stay on target?
• What cultural norms should the team have to AI assisted work? On the one hand it seems necessary to accelerate safety progress, on the other I expect many applications are in fact trojan horses designed to automate people out of jobs (looking at you MSFT rewind) - are there credible deals to be made that can provide trust?
• Does the organization expect to be rapidly changing to new events in AI - and if so how will sensemaking happen - or does it expect to make it's high conviction bet early on and stay the course through distractions? Do teammembers know that?

I have more questions than answers, but the background level of stress and disorientation for employees and managers will be rising, especially in AI Safety orgs, and starting to come up w/ contextually true answers (I doubt there's a universal answer) will be important.

• Why do I not always have conscious access to my inner parts? Why, when speaking with authority figures, might I have a sudden sense of blankness.
• Recently I've been thinking about this reaction in the frame of 'legibility', ala Seeing like a State. State's would impose organizational structures on societies that were easy to see and control - they made the society more legible - to the actors who ran the state, but these organizational structure were bad for the people in the society.
• For example, census data, standardized weights and measures, and uniform languages make it easier to tax and control the population. [Wikipedia]
• I'm toying with applying this concept across the stack.
• If you have an existing model of people being made up of parts [Kaj's articles], I think there's a similar thing happening. I notice I'm angry but can't quite tell why or get a conceptual handle on it - if it were fully legible and accessible to conscious mind, then it would be much easier to apply pressure and control that 'part', regardless if the control I am exerting is good. So instead, it remains illegible.
• A level up, in a small group conversation, I notice I feel missed, like I'm not being heard in fullness, but someone else directly asks me about my model and I draw a blank, like I can't access this model or share it. If my model were legible, someone else would get more access to it and be able to control it/point out its flaws. That might be good or it might be bad, but if it's illegible it can't be "coerced"/"mistaken" by others.
• One more level up, I initially went down this track of thinking for a few reasons, one of which was wondering why prediction forecasting systems are so hard to adopt within organizations. Operationalization of terms is difficult and it's hard to get a precise enough question that everyone can agree on, but it's very 'unfun' to have uncertain terms (people are much more likely to not predict then predict with huge uncertainty). I think the legibility concept comes into play - I am reluctant to put a term out that is part of my model of the world and attach real points/weight to it because now there's this "legible leverage point" on me.
• I hold this pretty loosely, but there's something here that rings true and is similar to an observation Robin Hanson made around why people seem to trust human decision makers more than hard standards.
• This concept of personal legibility seems associated with the concept of bucket errors, in that theoretically sharing a model and acting on the model are distinct actions, except I expect often legibility concerns are highly warranted (things might be out to get you)

Recently learned about Acquired savant syndrome. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Padgett

After the attack, Padgett felt "off." He assumed it was an effect of the medication he was prescribed; but it was later found that, because of his traumatic brain injury, Padgett had signs of obsessive–compulsive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder.^[5] He also began viewing the world through a figurative lens of mathematical shapes.

"Padgett is one of only 40 people in the world with “acquired savant syndrome,” a condition in which prodigious talents in math, art or music emerge in previously normal individuals following a brain injury or disease.

this makes it seem more likely to me that bio interventions for increases in IQ in adult humans is possible, though likely algernon's law holds and there's a cost.

h/t @Jesse Hoogland 

Why so few third party auditors of algorithms? for instance, you could have an auditing agency make specific assertions about what the twitter algorithm is doing, whether the community notes is 'rigged'
 

• It could be that this is too large of a codebase, too many people can make changes, it's too hard to verify the algorithm in production is stable. This seems unlikely to me with most modern devops stacks
• It could be that no one will trust the third party agency. I guess this seems most likely... but really, have we even tried? Could we not have some group of monk like Auditors who would rather die than lie (my impression is some cyber professionals have this ethos already)

If Elon wanted to spend a couple hundred thousand on insanely commited high integrity auditors, it'd be a great experiment

• Yes And is an improv technique where you keep the energy in a scene alive by going w/ the other persons suggestion and adding more to it. "A: Wow is that your pet monkey? B: Yes and he's also my doctor!"
• Yes And is generative (creates a lot of output), as opposed to Hmm No which is critical (distills output)
• A lot of the Sequences is Hmm No
• It's not that Hmm No is wrong, it's that it cuts off future paths down the Yes And thought-stream.
• If there's a critical error at the beginning of a thought that will undermine everything else then it makes sense to Hmm No (we don't want to spend a bunch of energy on something that will be fundamentally unsound). But if the later parts of the thought stream are not closely dependent on the beginning, or if it's only part of the stream that gets cut off, then you've lost a lot of potential value that could've been generated by the Yes And.
• In conversation yes and is much more fun, which might be why the Sequences are important as a corrective (yeah look it's not fun to remember about biases, but they exist and you should model/include them)
• Write drunk, edit sober. Yes And drunk, Hmm No in the morning.

AI for improving human reasoning seems promising; I'm uncertain whether it makes sense to invest in new custom applications, as maybe improvements in models are going to do a lot of the work.

I'm more bullish on investing in exploration of promising workflows and design patterns. As an example, a series of youtube videos and writeups on using O3 as a forecasting aid for grantmaking, with demonstrations. Or a set of examples of using LLMs to aid in productive meetings, with a breakdown of the tech used and social norms that the participants agreed to. 
- I think these are much cheaper to do in terms for time and money.
- A lot of epistemics seems to be HCI bottlenecked.
- Good design patterns are easily copyable, which also means they're probably underinvested in relative to their returns.
- Social diffusion of good epistemic practices will not necessarily hapepn as fast as AI improvements.
    - Improving the AIs themselves to be more truth seeking and provide good advice - with good benchmarks - is another avenue.

I imagine a fellowship for prompt engineers and designers, prize competitions, or perhaps retroactive funding for people who have already developed good patterns.

I have a cold, which reminded me that I want fashionable face masks to catch on so that I can wear them all the time in cold-and-flu season without accruing weirdness points.

epistemic status: thought about this for like 15 minutes + two deep research reports

a contrarian pick for underrated technology area is lie detection through brain imaging. It seems like it will become much more robust and ecologically valid through compute scaled AI techniques, and it's likely to be much better at lie detection than humans because we didn't have access to images of the internals of other peoples brains in the ancestral environment. 

On the surface this seems like it would be transformative - brain scan key employees to make sure they're not leaking information! test our leaders for dark triad traits (ok that's a bit different than specific lies but still) - however there's a cynical part of me that sounds like some combo of @ozziegooen and Robin Hanson which notes we have methods now (like significantly increased surveillance and auditing) which we could use for greater trust and which we don't employ. 

So perhaps this won't be used except for the most extreme natsec cases, where there are already norms of investigations and reduced privacy.

Related quicktake: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/hhbibJGt2aQqKJLb7/shortform-1#25tKsX59yBvNH7yjD

Depression as a concept doesn't make sense to me. Why on earth would it be fitness enhancing to have a state of withdrawal, retreat, collapse where a lack of energy prevents you from trying new things? I've brainstormed a number of explanations:

• depression as chemical imbalance: a hardware level failure has occurred, maybe randomly maybe because of an "overload" of sensation
• depression as signaling: withdrawal and retreat from the world indicates a credible signal that I need help
• depression as retreat: the environment has become dangerous and bad and I should withdraw from it until it changes.

I'm partial to the explanation offered by the Predictive Processing Model, that depression is an extreme form of low confidence. As SSC write:

imagine the world’s most unsuccessful entrepreneur. Every company they make flounders and dies. Every stock they pick crashes the next day. Their vacations always get rained-out, their dates always end up with the other person leaving halfway through and sticking them with the bill.

What if your job is advising this guy? If they’re thinking of starting a new company, your advice is “Be really careful – you should know it’ll probably go badly”.

if sadness were a way of saying “Things are going pretty badly, maybe be less confidence and don’t start any new projects”, that would be useful...

Depression isn’t normal sadness. But if normal sadness lowers neural confidence a little, maybe depression is the pathological result of biological processes that lower neural confidence.

But I still don't understand why the behaviors we often see with depression - isolation, lack of energy - are 'longterm adaptive'. If a particular policy isn't working, I'd expect to see more energy going into experimentation.

[TK. Unfinished because I accidentally clicked submit and haven't finished editing the full comment]

Is the clearest "win" of a LW meme the rise of the term "virtue signaling"? On the one hand I'm impressed w/ how dominant it has become in the discourse, on the other... maybe our comparative advantage is creating really sharp symmetric weapons...