gustaf4d30

2 Months after this post, Elon Musk announced Grokipedia, utilizing Grok + Web Search.

It's quite close to what is described in this post. e.g. Grokipedia does this:

I think I would start with a version where humans cannot edit the articles directly, but can add comments, and the AIs can consider them, and either update the article accordingly, or choose not to.

See also this Quicktake on Grokipedia. The idea of Grokipedia likely started here.

There are also examples of LLM made Wikis without web search, which usually generate pages on the fly.
e.g. 2 years before this post, someone made a Wiki with GPT-3.
1 month after this post, someone used Kimi K2 Instruct.
Also 1 month after this post, someone else made Infinipedia.ai.

Kongo Landwalker's Shortform

gustaf6d10

It claims to be 5.1, I do not know how to check it

The first response is claimed to by gpt-5-1. The second response is claimed to by gpt-5-1-t-mini (thinking for 5 seconds).

there is no version selection.

If I switch to a free ChatGPT account, I can still select "Thinking" on the website by click on the plus next to the input box. That then routes me to gpt-5-1-t-mini. Alternatively you can append "think hard" to your prompt, which will usually route you to gpt-5-1-t-mini too. I tried this with your prompt and it worked.

Note: with free ChatGPT the context window of your gpt-5-1 is limited to 16k tokens.

If you want to try your prompt against frontier LLMs, you could try LMArena. Your prompt will be shared with researchers and trained on, but you can try gpt-5.1-thinking-high, opus-4.5-thinking and gemini-3-pro-preview for free. The Gemini App and Google AIStudio also give free access to gemini-3-pro-preview. Or you buy a subscription.

Simple Math Of Everything

gustaf7d10

The first link was on the WebArchive. I've replaced the link. I couldn't find the original that was at the second link (http://mtc.epfl.ch/courses/TCS-2009/notes/5.pdf). I've removed it. Thanks for the Wikipedia link. I've added it.

Kongo Landwalker's Shortform

gustaf7d30

Can you share an example chat or prompt? Then I could see whether I can reproduce it on my ChatGPT Plus account. Or which model OpenAI claims it to be from.

On the website, you can use the following CSS to show which LLM, OpenAI claims to have used:

[data-message-model-slug]::before {
  content: attr(data-message-model-slug);
  font-family: monospace;
  margin-right: auto;
  background-color: #181818;
  padding: 4px 8px;
  border-radius: 4px;
}

(I like this Chrome extension for adding JavaScript and CSS to pages.)

From Vitalik: Galaxy brain resistance

gustaf1mo130

Crossposting Eliezer's comments.

Thread between Eliezer and Vitalik

Eliezer Yudkowsky replying on Twitter:

This applies way beyond mere ethics, though! As a kid I trained myself by trying to rationalize ridiculous factual propositions, and then for whatever argument style or thought process reached the false conclusion, I learned to myself: "Don't think that way."

Vitalik Buterin:

Indeed, but I think ethics (in a broad sense) is the domain where the selection pressure to make really powerful galaxy brain arguments is the strongest.
Outside of ethics, perhaps self-control failures? eg. the various "[substance] is actually good for me" stories you often hear. Though you can model these as being analogous, they're just about one sub-agent in your mind trying to trick the others (as opposed to one person trying to trick other people).

Eliezer Yudkowsky:

Harder training domain, not so much because you're more tempted to fool yourself, as because it's not clear-cut which propositions are false. I'd tell a kid to start by training on facts and make sure they're good at that before they try training on ethics.

Vitalik Buterin: Agree!

Eliezer Yudkowsky:

Eg:
Argue: That a saltshaker is Jesus Christ.
Rationalization: Gurer jrer n ybg bs ngbzf va Wrfhf'f obql naq fbzr bs gurz ner ab qbhog va guvf fnygfunxre, tvira Nibtnqeb'f ahzore naq gur ibyhzr bs Rnegu'f fhesnpr.
Lesson: Look at what your thoughts did there; never do that.

Eliezer Yudkowsky used ROT13 to hide an example Rationalization.
After thinking about it yourself, hover over the box below, to reveal his example.

There were a lot of atoms in Jesus's body and some of them are no doubt in this saltshaker, given Avogadro's number and the volume of Earth's surface.

Related writing by Eliezer

Skill: Anti-rationalization (1): Prevent your mind from selectively searching for support of only one side of an argument.

Subskill: Notice the process of selectively searching for support, and halt it. Chains into "Ask whether, not why", or into trying to unbind the need to rationalize. Level 1, notice the active process after performing a conscious check whether it's running; Level 2, detect it perceptually and automatically; Level 3, never run this process.

Exercise material: List of suggested conclusions to rationalize. I'm not quite sure what the prerequisites here would be; one of my own childhood epiphanies was finding that I could argue reasons why there ought to be a teapot in the asteroid belt, and thinking to myself, "Well, I better not do that, then." I suspect the primary desideratum would be more that the topic offers plenty of opportunity to come up with clever rationalizations, rather than that the topic offers motivation to come up with clever rationalizations.
Exercise A: Pick a conclusion from the list. Come up with a clever argument why it is true. Notice what it feels like to do this. Then don't do it.
(This is distinct from noticing the feeling of being tempted to rationalize, a separate subskill.)
Exercise B: In the middle of coming up with clever arguments why something is true, stop and chain into the Litany of Tarski, or some other remedy. Variant: Say out loud "Ew!" or "Oops!" during the stop part.
Exercise C: For a conclusion on the list, argue that it is true. Then "Ask whether, not why" - try to figure out whether it is true. Notice the difference between these two processes. Requires a question whose answer is less than immediately obvious, but which someone can find info about by searching their memory and/or the Internet.

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/f4CZNEHirweN3XEjs/teachable-rationality-skills?commentId=F837zHgkrTA2rqusn

I learned at a very young age not to be impressed by the sleight-of-hand that assembles a clever-sounding argument for why there might be a teapot in the asteroid belt, even or especially when it was my own brain generating the argument; that was where my journey began, with the search for a kind of thinking that couldn't argue impressively for any conclusion.

https://www.reddit.com/r/rational/comments/dk4hh8/comment/f4po393

When I was a kid I trained myself by coming up with the best arguments I could for propositions I knew to be false, then contemplating the arguments until they no longer seemed persuasive. I picked ridiculous targets.

https://x.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1900621719225987188