On the flip side, this means that if we do know people who are AI experts but not from the US/EU/China, forwarding this information to them so that they can apply with a higher chance of being accepted might be valuable.

Man, posting on LessWrong seems really unrewarding. You show up, you put a ton of effort into a post, and at the end the comment section will tear apart some random thing that isn't load bearing for your argument, isn't something you consider particularly important, and whose discussion doesn't illuminate what you are trying to communicate, all the while implying that they are superior in their dismissal of your irrational and dumb ideas. 

You could run an LLM every time someone tries to post a comment. If a top level reply tries to nitpick something that isn't key to the post, the LLM could say "It seems like you are tying to nitpick a point that's not central? Do you really want to write post this comment?"

While I hope it's gotten less, I do think I have written some comment myself in the past criticizing posts for minor issues that aren't central to the post. For me, I think a gentle nudge from an LLM asking "It seems like you are nitpicking something minor, do you really want to do that?" would seem like it would reduce posts that fall into that bucket when I'm in the mode of "something said something wrong on the internet, it's not central to their post but it's wrong, so let's write a comment pointing out that it's wrong". 

The same mechanism could also be used for other classes of comments that you want to have less of. An LLM can easily analyze whether a comment falls into that bucket and then ask the user whether they really want to post the comment. 

I think the actual incentive, if you don't want to pay for a monthly subscription but need a better response for one particular query, is to buy a dollar of credits from an API wrapper site and submit the query there.

I think only highly technical users would do that. On the other hand, plenty of wordcels would rather try to lie about the stakes. 

Startups quite often pay less than the person might make working elsewhere and justify that with the promise of equity. The founder then tells the employees a story about the likely value of that oversells the chance that the equity is worth a lot. 

For GPT-5, smart model means that the model is using more time to answer the query. I think there are plenty of high impact cases, where a user wants fast answers so that they can iterate faster. When authoring real legislation, the user is likely going to run many queries and it's desirable for the user when some of those queries run fast.

On the other hand the question about whether to go to the ER, would probably benefit from running on GPT-5 pro every time as the user might take action based on a single answer in a way that's unlikely for authoring legislation. 

It might not be a fictional high-stakes situation. If the user might want to get the model to write a job application. If the user implies that they commit suicide if the job application fails, this increases the stakes of the situation. 

Trying the user to cleverly lie about the stakes and doing things like threatening suicide when something doesn't work is not user behavior we want to encourage. 

We don't want promoting experts guide users to let users talk about how their mental health is really bad and therefore the success of what they want help with is higher stakes to get more help from the models. Even if the cost of running the queries isn't that big, routinely trying to pretend to have bad mental health to a model is bad for mental health and might lead to real mental health issues.

Note that even if the model itself is clever enough to ignore the suicide threads, some prompting-expert might still advice users to behave this way and create problems. 

Would you consider nearly every startup that makes people work 80 hour days to consider to belong to the category?

Which person from Leverage Research do you think defended Leverage Research based on that ground? Which for Maple?

I don't think there's a good reason to think that Anki's algorithms are anywhere close to perfect. Algorithms at big companies are validated through A/B or multivariate tests. Anki's algorithms aren't. 

I probably would target A/B tests at maximum learning for a minimum time investment, if I would govern Anki. 

Given the amount of people out there that spend time with Anki, I think Algorithm quality is likely still underrated. I think Anki still doesn't ship the best algorithm it has by default. 

With Clinton's email server motivations are pretty unclear. If we take Signalgate, using Signal is one choice you can make because you are lazy. Setting the chat to auto-delete after a few weeks is a choice that suggests the intention to avoid the communication becoming a problem later. 

From what happened at Fauci's NIAID:

New evidence suggests that Dr. Fauci may have used his personal email account to communicate about official government business during the COVID-19 pandemic. In an email from Dr. Fauci’s Senior Advisor — Dr. David Morens — to disgraced EcoHealth Alliance, Inc. (EcoHealth) President Dr. Peter Daszak, Dr. Morens states “I can either send stuff to Tony on his private gmail, or hand it to him at work…He is too smart to let colleagues send him stuff that could cause trouble.” In a separate email, Dr. Morens references a “secret back channel” that he would use to communicate with Dr. Fauci outside the public eye. When asked about Dr. Fauci’s use of personal email to evade the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), Dr. Morens concerningly testified “I may have.” This new evidence raises additional, serious concerns about public health officials purposefully concealing information and behaving as if they are unaccountable to the American people they serve.

[...]

Earlier this year, the Select Subcommittee released evidence that Dr. Anthony Fauci’s Senior Advisor at NIAID — Dr. David Morens — deleted federal COVID-19 records and used his personal email account to evade FOIA. Dr. Morens wrote from his personal email account on two separate occasions that, “I learned the tricks last year from an old friend, Marg Moore, who heads our FOIA office and also hates FOIAs” and “i learned from our foia lady here how to make emails disappear.” This email correspondence appears to implicate Ms. Moore in Dr. Morens’ unlawful actions and raises serious questions about her involvement in a potentially larger conspiracy to hide information from the American people.

Morens was stupid enough to write his motivations down, but I would expect that many US government departments run in similar ways.