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.
We are sorry about this, but submissions from new users that are mostly just links to papers on open repositories (or similar) have usually indicated either crackpot-esque material, or AI-generated speculation. It's possible that 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).
Separately, LessWrong users are also quite unlikely to follow such links to read the content without other indications that it would be worth their time (like being familiar with the author), so this format of submission is pretty strongly discouraged without at least a brief summary or set of excerpts that would motivate a reader to read the full thing.
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.
Insufficient Quality for AI Content. There’ve been a lot of new users coming to LessWrong recently interested in AI. To keep the site’s quality high and ensure stuff posted is interesting to the site’s users, we’re currently only accepting posts that meet a pretty high bar.
If you want to try again, I recommend writing something short and to the point, focusing on your strongest argument, rather than a long, comprehensive essay. (This is fairly different from common academic norms.) We get lots of AI essays/papers every day and sadly most of them don't make very clear arguments, and we don't have time to review them all thoroughly.
We look for good reasoning, making a new and interesting point, bringing new evidence, and/or building upon prior discussion. If you were rejected for this reason, possibly a good thing to do is read more existing material. The AI Intro Material wiki-tag is a good place, for example.

Posts

Wikitag Contributions

Comments

Posts

Wikitag Contributions

Comments