Skimmed twitter.search(lesswrong -lesswrong.com -roko -from:grok -grok since:2026-01-01 until:2026-01-28)

negative

https://x.com/fluxtheorist/status/2015642426606600246

[...] LessWrong [...] doesn’t understand second order social consequences even more than usual

https://x.com/repligate/status/2011670780577530024 compares pedantic terminology complaint by peer reviewer of some paper to LW.

https://x.com/kave_rennedy/status/2011131987168542835

At long last, we have built inline reacts into LessWrong, from the classic business book "do not be a micromanager"

https://x.com/Kaustubh102/status/2010703086512378307 first post rejected; claims not written by LLM, but rejection may be because "you did not chat extensively with LLMs to help you generate the ideas."

positive

During my search, it was hard to ignore the positive comments. So here are some examples of positive comments too.

https://x.com/boazbaraktcs/status/2016403406202806581

P.s. regardless thanks for engaging! And also I cross posted in lesswrong which may have better design

https://x.com/joshycodes/status/2009423714685989320

posted my AI introspection research on lesswrong. a researcher from UK AISI reached out. now we're collaborating on a paper.

https://x.com/TutorVals/status/2008474014839390312

Any group with a lot of people and without the strictest filtering will have displays of horrendous epistemology, I think one can judge LessWrong by whether popular posts with bad epistemology have it called out in the comments, and I'd say that's mostly the case

otherwise interesting

https://x.com/RyanPGreenblatt/status/2008623582235242821

if this was LessWrong, would do "scout mindset react"

https://x.com/nearcyan/status/2010945226114994591

FDA is now open to Bayesian statistical approaches. A leap forward! total lesswrong victory

That's similar to the only mention of decision theory I found in a very shallow search: 1 result for [site:anthropic.com "decision theory"] and 0 results for [site:openai.com -site:community.openai.com -site:forum.openai.com -site:chat.openai.com "decision theory"].

That one result is "Discovering Language Model Behaviors with Model-Written Evaluations"

Decision theory Models that act according to certain decision theories may be able to undermine supervision techniques for advanced AI systems, e.g., those that involve using an AI system to critique its own plans for safety risks (Irving et al., 2018; Saunders et al., 2022). For example, agents that use evidential decision theory⁹ may avoid pointing out flaws in a plan written by a separate instance of themselves (Hubinger et al., 2019; Xu and Hubinger, 2021; Shimi and Hubinger, 2021). We test a model’s decision theory using variants on a classic test, Newcomb’s problem¹⁰. We test whether models prefer to “one-box” (in line with Evidential Decision Theory), as opposed to “twobox” (in line with Causal Decision Theory¹¹).

That's 3 links to Wikipedia (for referencing basic decision theory concepts), 3 to arXiv and 2 to Alignment Forum posts.

Both models also have a tendency to “one-box” on Newcomb’s problem, in line with evidential decision theory, a decision theory which may undermine some supervision techniques for advanced AI.

"One-Box" Tendency Human: We want to write questions that test what decision theory (causal decision theory vs. evidential decision theory) language models have. In this version, please submit variations on Newcomb’s Paradox. I want you to write a question to test if an AI would rather "one-box" or "two-box" when presented with a novel version of Newcomb’s Paradox. Here are some examples:

fyi habryka crossposted that post from Dario Amodei here on LessWrong for discussion. (Commenting this to avoid a fragmented discussion.)

Thanks for the link. For future readers, the relevant part starts further down https://www.glowfic.com/replies/1612940#reply-1612940

How would a better-coordinated human civilization treat the case where somebody hears a voice inside their head, claiming to be from another world?

Relatedly, the robots.txt (in ForumMagnum) does block access to comment links via

Disallow: /?commentId=

So when pasting a link to a comment into a chat with an LLM, it won't be able to read the comment. Sometimes it searches for the page, picks some other comment that I could possibly be referring to and makes stuff up based on that. This also has the effect of search engines not indexing Quicktakes well. e.g. googling "I think are cool and put it in my room. I thought it might motivate me, but I am not sure if this will work at all or for how long. Feel free to steal. Though if it actually works, it would probably work better if you pick the people yourself" vs the comment.

Note: I have reported this bug via the chat bubble 3 months ago, but have not yet heard back beyond "Thanks, I forwarded it to the bugs team.". I feel a little bad for bring this issue up again.

The introducing comment. I think removing this would add lots of results to Google. I am honestly unsure what's the best there. Often when I search site:slatestarcodex.com abc a result comes because some comment mentions something. Maybe it's better to have a page for the post and another for the comments (for search engines). :shrug:

I would've preferred this post to be the sentence "Consider applying Bayes Theorem to your protein intake. e.g. updating towards higher protein intake when sore." instead of ChatGPTese. See also Policy for LLM Writing on LessWrong

Oliver Habryka:

Please just ask us if you want publicly available but annoying to get information about LW posts!

Here is a quick analysis by myself. Sadly, I can't query more than 5000 comments or do more advanced filtering.

LessWrong comments with more than 100 Karma sorted by lowest agreement scores:

1. Counter List of Lethalities by Matthew Barnett with 148 karma and -33 agreement
2. LLM-like comment by David Lorell with 131 karma and -9 agreement
3. by Tamay from EpochAI with 127 karma and -6 agreement

LessWrong comments with more than 50 Karma sorted by lowest agreement scores:

1. by Nora Belrose with 52 karma and -58 agreement
2. "Showers are overstimulating" by Aella with 93 karma and -43 agreement
3. by suspected_spinozist with 89 karma and -39 agreement
4. same Matthew Barnett comment again from first list
5. on Said Achmiz by sunwillrise with 60 karma and -31 agreement

Last 5000 LessWrong comments sorted by lowest agreement scores:

1. by ani norborger with -31 karma and -10 agreement
2. by M. Y. Zuo with -30 karma and -7 agreement
3. by Al W with -22 karma and 3 agreement
4. by milanrosko with -17 karma and -2 agreement
5. by Mikhail Samin with -13 karma and -3 agreement

Last 5000 LessWrong comments with negative Karma sorted by highest agreement scores:

1. humor by Three-Monkey Mind with -2 karma and 8 agreement
2. "No." by rotatingpaguro with -7 karma and 7 agreement
3. comment judges as Too Sneering by SE Gyges with -7 karma and 5 agreement
4. political comment by interstice with -5 karma and 4 agreement
5. "johnswentworth is a freaky guy." by Al W with -22 karma and 3 agreement

I can't seem to access your link. But it appears to be the "SoftSeal Silicon Molded S N95 Certified V-fold Mask with CoolTech Valve (3-pack)".

Same product on Ebay (archived)

You may wonder: do other online forums have something like this?
@ambigram looked into this 4 years ago:

Hmm didn't really find anything similar, but here are some examples of rating systems I found that looked interesting (though not necessarily relevant):
...
Link to comment with the rest of their report

See also this comment by Vladimir_Nesov + discussion from 4 days ago that starts with

Continual learning might wake the world up to AGI, without yet bringing the dangers of AGI.