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.
If you make a bet you need to be very clear about the criteria of how the bet gets decided, currently it seems like this post doesn't lay out the criteria.
They don’t have too much to say about how to distinguish which norms we should keep and which we should get rid of; rather, they suggest eliminating coercive enforcement, which would also satisfy what they think are the root complaints of many (e.g. some radical feminists) who would prefer to get rid of gender entirely.
Are the rules that forbid men to participate in female Olympic events "coercive enforcement"? Is kicking out men who want to join women's shelters for woman who were abused and are afraid of men "coercive enforcement"?
If yes, getting rid of female-only Olympic events and women's shelters seems like something that feels like a high cost to general societal values. If that's what someone calls for, they should argue that position more explicitly instead of hiding it in a nice sounding phrase like "eliminating coercive enforcement".
If no, how do the categories those cases where we have reasons to give out certain privileges to people of a certain gender?
Basically, you are saying "we can do X and I hope it will do A, B and C" without any regard for the real world consequences.
A question to better understand your opinion: if all alignment community would try to realize Political Plan with all efforts they do now to align an AI directly, what do you think is the probability of success of alignment?
Will likely go down as engaging in politics is mind-killing and it's important to think clearly to achieve AI alignment.
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.