Rank: #10 out of 4859 in peer accuracy at Metaculus for the time period of 2016-2020.
I abstractly described a thing that would work
Why do you believe that it would work? Psychology is a field where abstract ideas that people think would work frequently turn out to not work. Why do you think you understand the underlying mechanics well enough to know what would work?
Then, the appropriate reaction is to relax the constraints we impose on ourselves, test if the relaxation is valid, and take best action we've got left. If we were able to do this reliably, we would find ourselves doing the best we can, and low self-esteem would be a non-issue.
Do you think that this is a strategy that someone who has imposter syndrome could use to make his imposter syndrome a non-issue? I would be surprised if that's the case.
Actually, getting rid of a "I'm not good enough" belief, through methods like what's described in Steve Andreas Transform Your Self, seems to me much more likely to help the person.
OpenAI said that they don't want to train on the CoT. Given information about whether or not the CoT contains scheming to the user that presses buttons that affect training is training based on the CoT.
I think you can argue about the merits of "don't train based on CoT" but it seems to be one of the few free safety relevant decision where OpenAI had a safety idea and manages to actually execute it.
It's hard to know about how successful attempts to shut down technology development would look like, but I think that the research project that was MKUltra seemed to have stopped after it was shut down.
Why would he say this? What does he have to gain by emphasizing something so far away from reality? Wouldn't he be found out by something so blatant? How could this be a reasonable thing to say? Is there a perspective from which he is being transparent?
I really was trying to make sense of what perspective would produce these words, but eventually it struck me: he's saying it because it would be good for him if you believed it, and he thinks he can get away with saying it without you catching him out.
I think there are multiple things going on here. One of the things Evrart is advising the character to transparent about is that Evrart works to get the characters gun back. That means that he wants the character to tell Joyce something that suggests that the the character has a debt towards Evrart.
Evrart suggest that he is not going to violate the privacy of the character, which concretely might mean telling other people about the gun. If the character however decides not to tell Joyce about the gun after being explicitly told that he can do so, the character joins into being complicit with hiding information.
most senior researchers have more good ideas than they can execute
What do you mean with good idea?
My general impression of the field is that we lack ideas that are likely to solve AI alignment right now. To me that suggests that good ideas are scarce.
There seem to me different categories of being doomful.
There are people who think that for theoretic reasons AI alignment is hard or impossible.
There are also people who are more focused practical issues like AI companies being run in a profit maximizing way and having no incentives to care for most of the population.
Saying, "You can't AI box for theoretical reasons" is different from saying "Nobody will AI box for economic reasons".
A key problem is that the responsibility for the problem is separated over multiple different stakeholders that all matter.
In your example, it sounds like the main problem is with the facility management that doesn't seem to consider printers as something that they should organize in a sensible way.
When it comes to printing, many times I want to print, I don't really want to get a piece of paper but want to send a letter. Software like Google Docs could just give me a "send a letter" and "send a fax" button and let me pay for the service.
If you believe "That people can become better at distinguishing true things, or if you prefer, become more rational, by a series of practices, notably and especially applying Bayes' Theorem from probability theory to evaluating facts" is one of the main things that rationalism is about in a religious way, than how do you explain that so few posts on LessWrong are about using Bayes Theorem to evaluate facts?
When I look at the LessWrong.com frontpage I don't see any post being about that and I think there are very if if any posts written on LessWrong in 2025 that are about that. How does that match your thesis?