You can try to make a prediction about what future you will think. For example, "in 2 years, I will think that working on project X was a good idea". If other people don't want to bet on those terms (since you can technically say whatever you want at the end), you can just write down predictions and then see whether your predictions in the past were correct.

You might object that now you don't have skin in the game, but I think you do, if you care about trying to win the game of writing down good predictions.

You need to have beliefs to test how well-calibrated your beliefs are. Studying is one way to form new beliefs. You could avoid that effort by just testing your existing beliefs.

Suleyman acknowledges that consciousness as a concept is ill defined and tautological.

Few concepts are as elusive and seemingly circular as the idea of a subjective experience.

I don't think the quote from the article supports your claim here. "Elusive" does not mean "ill-defined", and "seemingly circular" does not mean "tautological". 

Thank you for the post, I found it very informative on Suleyman's views.

Serious decisions which have consequences that will effect billions of lives, and potentially billions more minds, should not be made on the basis of "Invisible" concepts which cannot be observed, measured, tested, falsified, or even defined with any serious level of rigor.

I don't think that the difficulty of ascertaining whether something results in qualia is a valid basis to reject its importance. I would say that one has to extrapolate from oneself to the entity in question and evaluate whether its features suggest associated qualia.

(Some reject that substrate could be a relevant feature and others claim that substrate is the only relevant feature... I have not yet undersood why people hold these beliefs. Prima facie, behavior, algorithm and substrate all seem like they could be relevant.)

Yes, and this might be a crux between "successionists" and "doomers" with highly cosmopolitan values.

Yeah, and to nitpick, "minimum" seems redundant with "necessary" anyway

Active noise cancellation is a huge quality of life improvement when flying.

I think it's a feature of the local dialect. I've seen it multiple times around here and never outside.

Interesting turn of events for the US to now disincentivize trade with Japan, wonder what Commodore Perry would think

My impression is that prior discussion focused on discretizing $\Lambda$. $\Lambda$ is already boolean here, so if the hypothesis is true then it's for a different reason.