fantastic video! 

only complaint: you run through the timeline like 4 times with little transition between each 'time reset', perhaps confusing a person not familiar with the arguments/timeline; they may not immediately realize you are pulling back to a previous point in the timeline/argument to re-run through another angle/variation of this story/model. it flows like one big narrative but its the same narrative/message of ai risk expressed 4/whatever times/ways.

but maybe im underestimating ppl's ability to track that

haha: agreed :) 
my rage there was around a different level/kind of fakery from anthropic, but i see now how this could connect-with/be part of a broader pattern that i wasn't aware of. remaining quibbles aside, i was wrong; this would be sufficient context/justification for using "propaganda". 

I see how it could potentially be the same pattern as people claiming ey hasn't talked enough about his position; to the person you disagree with, you will never have explained enough. but yeah i doubt any of the labs have 

I truly have no settled opinion on anthropic or you, and i get it's annoying to zoom in on something minor/unimportant like this, but: 

i think your lack of charity here is itself a kind of propaganda, a non-truth seeking behavior. even in your mark zuckerberg hypothetical, considered purely "technically"/locally, if he's not lying in that scenario, i don't think it's appropriate to call it propaganda. but of course in that world, this world, he is overwhelming likely to be lying or mind-warped past the point of the difference mattering. 

are you not ambiguating/motte-and-bailey-ing between what seems three possible meanings for propaganda ? : 
1) something like lies
2) doing something that's also beneficial to you financially
3) stating something without evidence

you know the connotation "propaganda" conveys (1 and general badness), but you fell back on 2 and 3. 

also while you may not agree with them, you know there are plenty of arguments (proposed evidence) for why we can't stop. you are therefore being disingenuous. must they be penned in-toto by dario to count? also didn't he put serious effort behind machines of loving grace? (I haven't read it yet). this isn't an 'out of the blue' and/or 'obvious bullshit' position like the zuck hypothetical; the whole AI world is debating/split on this issue; it is reasonably possible he really believes it, etc. 

... 

edit: saw your comment change just as i posted reply. not your fault tbc, just explaining why some of the content of my reply refers to things that no longer exist

I also notice that I am deeply confused about consciousness on essentially every level.

https://proteanbazaar.substack.com/p/consciousness-actually-explained  (direct link; there's a lw copy too) 

there were multiple questions under discussion. 
his reply could validly be said to apply to the subset of your post, implying or directly saying, that anthropic is doing a bad thing, ie he is highlighting that Disagreement is real and allowed  

you are correct that there is a separate vein here about the factual question of whether they are "in sync" with the ai x-risk community. that is a separate question that 1a3orn was not touching with their reply. you are mixing the two frames. if this was intentional then you were being disingenuous. if it was unintentional, you were being myopic

(genuine question) are you suggesting: he thinks we can stop, but is lying about that? 

just because he might not spell out that given node of his argument here doesn't mean it is propaganda. like locally/by-itself i don't see how this could be propaganda, but maybe extra context im missing makes that clear

I got curious why this was getting agreement-downvoted, and the only links I could find on the main/old MIRI site to the techgov site were in the last two blogposts. Given their stated strategy shift to policy/comms, this does seem a little odd/suboptimal; I'd expect them to be more prominently/obviously linked. To be fair the new techgov site does have a prominent link to the old site. 

Haven't finished reading this, but I just want to say how glad I am that LW 2.0 and everything related to it (lightcone, etc) happened. I came across lw at a time when it seemed "the diaspora" was just going to get more and more disperse; that "the scene" had ended. I feel disappointed/guilty with how little I did to help this resurgence, like watching on the sidelines as a good thing almost died but then saved itself. 

How I felt at the time of seemingly peak "diaspora" actually somewhat reminds me of how I feel about CFAR now (but to a much lesser extent than LW); I think there is still some activity but it seems mostly dead; a valiant attempt at a worthwhile problem; but there are many Problems and many Good Things in the world, but limited time, and am I really going to invest time figuring out if this particular Thing is truly dead? Or start up my own rationality-training-adjacent effort? Or some other high leverage Good Thing? Generic EA? A giving pledge? The result is I carry on trying to do what I thought was most valuable, perversely hoping some weird mix of "that Good Thing was actually dead or close to it; it's good you didn't jump in as you'd be swimming against the tide" vs "even if not dead; it wasn't/isn't a good lever in the end" vs "your chosen alternative project/lever is a good enough guess at doing good; you aren't responsible for the survival of all Good Things". 

And tbh I'm a little murky on the forces that led to the LW resurgence, even if we can point to single clear boosts like ey's recent posts. But I'll finish reading the post to see if my understanding changes. 

this account is pretty good, but not always up to the standard of "shaping the world" (you will have to scroll to get past their coverage of this same batch of openAI related emails): https://x.com/TechEmails 

their substack: https://www.techemails.com/