Laiba Rehman's Shortform

Laiba Rehman ✦ RJ

Laiba Rehman's Shortform — LessWrong

Laiba Rehman's Shortform

31st May 2026

1 min read

3

This is a special post for quick takes by Laiba Rehman ✦ RJ. Only they can create top-level comments. Comments here also appear on the Quick Takes page and All Posts page.

Laiba Rehman's Shortform

6 comments, sorted by

top scoring

Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 8:50 PM

[-]Laiba Rehman ✦ RJ3mo10

Wondering how robust Amazon's process of labelling a review with "Verified Purchase" is. Are we sure these are all users using AI to write their reviews and not bots?

Amazon say, "We check if the reviewer bought or used (e.g., streamed) the item on Amazon and paid a price available to most Amazon shoppers. If we confirm both, we label the review with Verified Purchase... Our automated and human checks stop millions of suspicious reviews."

[-]Viliam3mo30

You hack the "verified purchase" check by creating new accounts and using them to buy your product and post a positive review. It costs some money, of course, but so does all advertising, and this can be more effective.

Companies have been doing crazier things, such as buying their own product in huge numbers on day 1, to boost their statistics of Day 1 sales, if those statistics were published visibly enough in the shop to encourage actual customer to check what is this new thing that everyone is so crazy about. Compared to that, this is peanuts.

[-]Laiba Rehman ✦ RJ3mo10

Damn, just looked through the reviewers I screenshotted and yeah, all but one have only posted one review. However, "Only customers who have spent at least $50 on Amazon in the last 12 months can submit ratings and reviews." (Should have put that in the original, my bad.) That makes it seem like it would only be profitable if you intend to reuse the accounts for future reviews? Unless the value of a few 5-star ratings is much higher than I realise.

[-]Laiba Rehman ✦ RJ21d00

A message I sent on a group chat of friends that I'm happy with:

"I have a fun question for the pro-death people here

If you think death gives life meaning (or are otherwise pro-death), what do you propose as a solution for the "problem" of aging being cured?

I think it is unreasonable to believe that in the next 1000 years people won't find ways to at least significantly reduce the effects of aging, so we'll likely have people aged 300 looking like 30 year olds walking around

Do you think this is a problem and if yes then what's your solution?

(If you don't think this is a problem then maybe you think immortality is bad but we can live up to a certain age and that's fine. If that's your view then a) what age? b) what do you propose should happen to people once they reach that age?)

Remember that just because you think it's okay for people to be age X but not age X+50 doesn't mean that science will stop at age X, so you need a solution for what to do when people cross your line of age X"

[-]Daniel Kokotajlo21d31

Curious what people's responses were.

[-]Laiba Rehman ✦ RJ21d10

Unfortunately mostly dodging the question, or just saying they don't have a solution for that but still don't want death to be cured because billionaires would control the world/it would make inequality worse etc. (They haven't engaged much with rationality or anything like that, they're just friends on my Astrophysics course.)

Moderation Log