There is a reason why most legal systems in use today have evolved from (mostly or all) inquisitive to (mostly or all) adversarial, and that's because we have a gigantic body of evidence to suggest that inquisitive systems are particularly prone to render biased judgements.

What evidence do you have for that claim?

In Germany we allow judges to be more focused on being more inquisitorial than in Anglosaxon systems. How strong do you think the evidence for their being more biased judgements in Germany than in Anglosaxon system happens to be?

Otherwise, what evidence do you see that the features of Anglosaxon systems get copied by other Anglosaxon systems via mechanisms of well-researched argument instead of just following traditions?

Among other big European countries France, Italy, Spain also work more like the German system like the Anglosaxon systems. 

To me, it sounds like you treat the particulars of the Anglosaxon legal systems as universals without good reason for that. 

This can be a great time-saver because it relies on each party to present the best possible case for their side. 

That seems to be unlikely to be true. Having a system that focuses the evidence gathering on the questions that actually matter can save a lot of time. 

A huge reason why lawsuits are so time consuming and expensive in the United States is that the judge does not have the role to focus the evidence gathering on the questions that actually matter the way a German judge would. 

It doesn’t affect near-term open source models, simply because they will not be powerful enough to materially contribute to critical harm.

Why wouldn't deep fake porn or voice cloning technology to engage in fraud be powerful enough to materially contribute to critical harm?

There are cases of fraud that could do $500,000,000 in damages.

Given how juries decide about damages, a model that's used to create child porn for thousands of children could be argued to cause  $500,000,000 in damages as well. Especially when coupled with something like trying to extort the children.

If you have a best that actually measures expertise in engineering well, it's going to be valuable for those who make hiring decisions. 

Triplebyte essentially seems to have found a working business model that is about testing for expertise in programming. If you can do something similar as Triplebyte for other areas of expertise, that might be a good business model.

As far as genius hedgehog's in academia go, currently they find it very hard to get funding for their ideas. If you would replace the current process of having to write a grant proposal with having to take a test to measure expertise, I would expect the diversity of ideas that get researched to increase. 

It would be great if you add a bot to Metaculus that has it's own user account. That way it will be easier in the future to see how the bot compares in the real world. 

I think there's a pretty strong default that discussing the truth of claims that actually matter to the decisions people make is worthwhile on LessWrong. 

Saying, we can speak about the truth of some things but not about those that are actually really motivating for real-world decision-making seems to me like it's not good for LessWrong culture. 

I think an important point here is that GeneSmith actually wrote a post that's of high quality and interest to billionaires that people pass around. 

The mechanism that he described is not about billionaires reading random posts on the front page but about high value posts being passed around. Billionares have network that help them to get send post that are valuable to them.  

Yes, such a thing does exist: https://discord.gg/mSek4Mmz

Was there any process where you had to get this report approved by any Chinese authority or were you completely free in conducting and publishing this survey?

Do you reject utilitarianism? If so, it would make sense to be explicit about that when posting about a moral argument on a website that's predominantly utilitarian.