I think, if you're going to do it, good form on LW is to put it in a collapsible section.
Here's an edited version of what Microsoft Copilot says about the amount of planning involved in some lithic technologies:
Acheulean Handaxes (~1.7 – 0.3 Ma)
- Characterized by bifacially flaked “handaxes” with broadly symmetrical shapes.
- Crafting a handaxe required the knapper to visualize a final form, select an appropriate flint or chert nodule, and execute a sequence of removals to achieve symmetry and thinness.
Prepared-Core (Levallois) Flake-Making Techniques (~300 – 100 ka)
- Used mainly by H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens.
- The Levallois method involves preparing a tortoise-shaped core in several hierarchical stages so that a single, predetermined flake detaches as the final step.
- Achieving that predetermined flake shape demands extensive forward planning—mapping core geometry, platform angles, and flake dimensions before any major removal.
- Experimental studies show Levallois knapping is more intricate than discoid or basic handaxe manufacturing, requiring deliberate sequences and precision that attest to advanced cognitive organization.
Upper Paleolithic Blade Technologies (~50 – 10 ka)
- Homo sapiens popularized prismatic blade production: long, standardized flakes struck from carefully prepared cores.
- Blade knapping ranks highest in required dexterity, precision, and hierarchical planning, as each blade relies on strict core geometry and a series of carefully controlled blows.
Some late Acheulean sites hint at intermediate “proto-Levallois” strategies around 500 ka, suggesting a gradual cognitive shift rather than a sudden leap. Moreover, experimental archaeology today uses metrics like deliberation time, platform precision, and flake‐to-core ratios to quantify the cognitive demands of each technique—offering a window into the planning capabilities of our ancestors (1).
- Learning to think: using experimental flintknapping to interpret prehistoric cognition. https://core.tdar.org/document/395518/learning-to-think-using-experimental-flintknapping-to-interpret-prehistoric-cognition [Text unavailable, but you can find references to her later work on this topic at https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nada-Khreisheh]
- Stout, D. & Semenov, V. N. “Flake-to-Core Ratio and Efficiency in Levallois and Blade Knapping: Experimental Perspectives.” Journal of Archaeological Science, 33(6): 782–796. (2006)
- Nadel, D. & Cochrane, E. “Timing and Planning in Lithic Reduction: A High-Speed Video Analysis of Stone-Tool Making.” Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 17(2): 233–242. (2007)
- Rots, V. “Facet Count and Platform Precision in Prehistoric Knapping: A 3D-Scanning Study of Levallois and Blade Cores.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 18(4): 345–362. (2011)
- Clarkson, C. “Quantifying Sequence Complexity in Lithic Reduction: Blade Versus Point Production.” Antiquity, 83(319): 998–1015. (2009)
Answers! Of interest to: @Viliam @Raymond Douglas @Garrett Baker @Nina Panickssery @Perhaps @Mateusz Bagiński
 Let's make a bet! |  Bowing Out |
 Sad |  Agree Denotationally, Disagree Connotationally |
 Plus One |  Too Sneering |
 "I beseech you!" |  Moloch |
 Nitpick |  Question Answered |
 Smells like LLM |  Strong Argument |
 Weak Argument |  Changed My Mind (on this point) |
1
1
12/14 (I'm being generous with 'ditto'). The last two are v close guesses.
This is fun! I'll post answers tomorrow. Lots of close guesses, but this overall scores 2/14. (Note that we already have disappointed and agreed.)
I'd bet (at like 5:1) that nobody can guess 4 or 7. (7 is kind of a silly/novelty one.)
I'm surprised 9 and 11 aren't obvious.
You are right!
About one of them.
Better luck next time on the other 13.
I'm actually surprised the wizard one wasn't obvious (on reflection I am typical minding way too hard here).
Pretty surprising that the paper doesn't give much indication to what counts as "strong incentives" (or at least not that I could find after searching for 2 mins).
1OpenPhil was on the board of CEA and fired it's Executive Director and to this day has never said why; it made demands about who was allowed to have power inside of the Atlas Fellowship and who was allowed to teach there; it would fund MIRI by 1/3rd the full amount for (explicitly stated) signaling reasons; in most cases it was not be open about why it would or wouldn't grant things (often even with grantees!) that left me just having to use my sense of 'fashion' to predict who would get grants and how much; I've heard rumors I put credence on that it wouldn't fund AI advocacy stuff in order to stay in the good books of the AI labs... there was really a lot of opaque politicking by OpenPhil, that would of course have a big effect on how people were comfortable behaving and thinking around AI!
It's silly to think that a politically controlling entity would have to punish ppl for stepping out of line with one particular thing, in order for people to conform on that particular thing. Many people will compliment a dictator's clothes even when he didn't specifically ask for that.
It might not be disproof, but it would seem very relevant for readers to be aware of major failings of prominent moderates in the current environment e.g. when making choices about what strategies to enact or trust. (Probably you already agree with this.)
@dirk What do you think is the typo? I asked ChatGPT if my spelling was non-standard and it said 'nitpicking' is standard.
Oh, maybe are point out that there's no apostrophe in my use of the word "its" in the description.