You may disagree with Eliezer, but that does not change what he thinks. Perhaps you think “we are zombies wrt. free will -- we say we have it for reasons other than having it.”, but that is a very different claim than Eliezer thinks this or that Eliezer should think this.

Here is what he says about "compatibilism" in the above linked article

“Compatibilism” is the philosophical position that “free will” can be intuitively and satisfyingly defined in such a way as to be compatible with deterministic physics. “Incompatibilism” is the position that free will and determinism are incompatible.

My position might perhaps be called “Requiredism.” When agency, choice, control, and moral responsibility are cashed out in a sensible way, they require determinism—at least some patches of determinism within the universe. If you choose, and plan, and act, and bring some future into being, in accordance with your desire, then all this requires a lawful sort of reality; you cannot do it amid utter chaos. There must be order over at least those parts of reality that are being controlled by you. You are within physics, and so you/physics have determined the future. If it were not determined by physics, it could not be determined by you.

here he argues directly against "To be able to determine the future in a way that is itself determined falls short of being able to steer to a future of your choosing.", so I suggest you read the article before saying you know what Eliezer thinks!

Ah, yeah, I didn't read the final paragraph. Glad to know my LLM nose is working though.

frontier AI does not currently exhibit superhuman persuasion

I will note that Tom's messages have a few hallmarks of ChatGPT, The em-dash, "its not... its just...", and it being very long while saying little.

This seems false? Eliezer believes we have free will? See Thou Art Physics.

Or perhaps I should say, “If the future were not determined by reality, it could not be determined by you,” or “If the future were not determined by something, it could not be determined by you.” You don’t need neuroscience or physics to push naive definitions of free will into incoherence. If the mind were not embodied in the brain, it would be embodied in something else; there would be some real thing that was a mind. If the future were not determined by physics, it would be determined by something, some law, some order, some grand reality that included you within it.

I think this is partially inaccurate, I wasn't considering the fact that the H100 has a few optimizations for AI specific workloads (eg it is much faster when doing low-precision calculations), and their higher memory bandwidth (~the speed at which vram can move).

Is this just people generally hating Americans or what?

On the "I bet this is false" react, a wild & likely unworkable idea (which I will say anyway) would be to hook that react up to a manifold market for which the reacter must bet "no" in.

I would feel better if your post was more of the following form: "I am curious about the actual level of agreement with IABI, here is a list of directly quoted claims made in the book (which I put in the comments below). React with agree/disagree about each claim. If your answer is instead "mu", then you can argue about it or something idk. Please also feel free to comment claims the book makes which you are interested in getting a survey of LessWrong opinions on yourself".

I think I would actually strong-upvote this post if it existed, provided the moderation seemed appropriate, and the seeded claims concrete and not phrased leadingly.

Edit: Bonus points for encouraging people to use the probability reacts rather than agree/disagree reacts.