Agree that a real source would be better but I think a Claude-source is better than nothing at all, especially in a case where the point is just to get the rough magnitudes and the details don't need to be exact. I'm not sure if editing my comment to just the first paragraph would be an improvement.

We've all seen the reports on how LLMs get good results on standardized exams and tests of general knowledge, so on this kind of question I'd presume it to be basically reliable (again, as long as we're talking just rough estimates and magnitudes, and take care not to ask leading questions). If my comment had instead included my own Fermi calculation or a random Wikipedia link, I'm guessing that that would have been more accepted, even though I doubt it would have been more reliable.

Agree; also this post doesn't seem to address e.g. the fact that the relative sizes of the social classes used to be quite different, and that today there exists a sizeable middle class rather than society being much more starkly divided into the poor vs. the wealthy. 

[EDIT: replaced Claude's estimate of social class sizes with the following:]

E.g. this paper cites economist Thomas Piketty's research as the original source, shows the share of property owned by the middle 40% of the population in Britain going from 10% to 40% between 1780 and 2015, with the top 10% of the population had 85-90% of the property up to around 1940.

Piketty (2020) has also been able to provide more distributional detail for the two most recent centuries, as shown in his Figure 5.4, reproduced here with permission (Piketty, 2020, p. 195). His estimates show that 1780–1800 saw a slight decline (from 89% to 86%) in the wealth proportion of the top 10% of private property holders, and an equivalent significant rise (from 10% to 13%) in the wealth held by the ‘middle 40%’, with the bottom 50% remaining at little more than 1% [...]

From [1910], however, the wealth of the top 10% began a gradual (1910–42) and then precipitate (1942–90) decline. By 1990, their share of national wealth had been almost cut in half to 48%, while the share of the ‘patrimonial middle class’ – the next 40% – had risen to 42%. Even the lowest 50% now had a 10% share in the nation’s wealth, while the top 1% had ‘only’ 18%.

So even if you buy the argument that there's a meaningful sense in which poverty hasn't been eliminated, the fraction of people who are middle class rather than poor has gone drastically up. And maybe a UBI won't be able to push poverty down to 0%, just as past progress hasn't, but it could quite possibly contribute another significant reduction.

It sounded as if you were suggesting doing this for random papers,

I presumed that Jan meant doing it for papers that had survived the previous "read the titles" and "read the abstracts" filtering stages.

(I was one of the people editing the post and I'm helping out with the course) Here's my current take.

Personally I like it and didn't have the association to "demons" at all, probably because I've seen this comic go around enough times to make the distinction clear.

Whoa this is an amazing idea! Thanks for implementing it.

• Is there some rule that determines which daemons chime in on which lines, or is it purely random?
• Warning for others: don't open Pantheon in two browser tabs at once and then go ahead to write stuff in one of them, expecting it to get saved - when you close the browser, it might also save the contents from the tab that you wrote almost nothing in, overwriting the storage that has more. (This is not a criticism, I imagine this to be tricky to fix and I should've thought of it myself.)
• Viewing the chain-of-thought for some of the daemons, I felt like a lot of ideas they had come up with in the first stage were better questions than the ones they finally settled on. (Unfortunately, I can't show examples because I lost the state.) Possibly this was because I was hoping to use it for brainstorming some ideas, and some responses that I would have found useful would have been the bots just asking follow-up questions about specific ideas I had. But since those questions were relatively obvious, they were ranked low on the "surprisingness" metrics. This makes me think that besides the choice of daemons, there could also be a setting for what kinds of comments you might find the most useful (that would swap between sets of chain-of-thought prompts) - in some contexts it's useful to also hear the obvious comments/questions, whereas in some other it's not. For now I'll just edit the chain-of-thought prompts manually.

I'm curious about the assertion that speed is theoretically unnecessary.

Isn't that the principle behind vertical takeoff aircraft? Or do you mean something else?

See this post

That link gives me a "Sorry, you don't have access to this draft"

I guess you could reap some benefits out of it even without actually believing in Christianity, but those seem much smaller than the ones you can get out of meditation. Also I think some of the happiness benefit Christians get is from being in a supportive community, and I already have non-religious communities that make me feel happy.

I find that the day-to-day benefits in terms of suffering less already make meditation worth it. I'm not sure why rebirth would be necessary if my current life can already be made much better.