No LLM generated, heavily assisted/co-written, or otherwise reliant work. LessWrong has recently been inundated with new users submitting work where much of the content is the output of LLM(s). This work by-and-large does not meet our standards, and is rejected. This includes dialogs with LLMs that claim to demonstrate various properties about them, posts introducing some new concept and terminology that explains how LLMs work, often centered around recursiveness, emergence, sentience, consciousness, etc. (these generally don't turn out to be as novel or interesting as they may seem).
Our LLM-generated content policy can be viewed here.
Writing seems likely in a "LLM sycophancy trap". Since early 2025, we've been seeing a wave of users who seem to have fallen into a pattern where, because the LLM has infinite patience and enthusiasm for whatever the user is interested in, they think their work is more interesting and useful than it actually is.
We unfortunately get too many of these to respond individually to, and while this is a bit/rude and sad, it seems better to say explicitly: it probably is best for you to stop talking much to LLMs and instead talk about your ideas with some real humans in your life who can. (See this post for more thoughts).
Generally, the ideas presented in these posts are not, like, a few steps away from being publishable on LessWrong, they're just not really on the right track. If you want to contribute on LessWrong or to AI discourse, I recommend starting over and and focusing on much smaller, more specific questions, about things other than language model chats or deep physics or metaphysics theories (consider writing Fact Posts that focus on concrete of a very different domain).
I recommend reading the Sequence Highlights, if you haven't already, to get a sense of the background knowledge we assume about "how to reason well" on LessWrong.
Difficult to evaluate, with potential yellow flags. We are sorry about this, but, unfortunately this content has some yellow-flags that historically have usually indicated kinda crackpot-esque material. It's totally plausible that actually this one is totally fine. Unfortunately, part of the trouble with separating valuable from confused speculative science or philosophy is that the ideas are quite complicated, accurately identifying whether they have flaws is very time intensive, and we don't have time to do that for every new user presenting a speculative theory or framing (which are usually wrong).
Our solution for now is that we're rejecting this post, but you are welcome to submit posts or comments that are about different topics. If it seems like that goes well, we can re-evaluate the original post. But, we want to see that you're not just here to talk about this one thing (or a cluster of similar things).

Posts

Wikitag Contributions

Comments