Hello! I work at Lightcone and like LessWrong :-). I have made some confidentiality agreements I can't leak much metadata about (like who they are with). I have made no non-disparagement agreements.
Posts
Wiki Contributions
Comments
But, in this tweet https://x.com/wtgowers/status/1816509813440082014 he says:
Another qualification is that the problems were manually translated into the proof assistant Lean, and only then did the program get to work. But the essential mathematics was done by the program: just the autoformalization part was done by humans.
I wish this quote were a little more explicit about what's going wrong. On a literal reading it's saying that some people who disagreed attended meetings and were made to feel comfortable. I think it's super plausible that this leads to some kind of pernicious effect, but I wish it spelt out more what.
I guess the best thing I can infer is that the author thinks public resignations and dissent would have been somewhat effective and the domesticated dissenters were basically ineffective?
Or is the context of the piece just that he's explaining the absence of prominent public dissent?
I probably would have done something similar to a random user, though probably with a more transparent writeup, and/or trying harder to shrink the image or something.
I'll note that [censored_meme.png] is something Jacob added back in after I removed the image, not something I edited in.
1I think it would still be correct to it resolve no for time reasons, even if it feels like it could be parallelisable (if it were parallelised, I would feel differently).
Good Ventures have banned OpenPhil from recommending grants to organizations working in the "rationalist community building" space (including for their non-"rationalist community building" work). I understand this to be because Dustin doesn't believe in that work and feels he suffers a bunch of reputational damage for funding it (IIRC, he said he'd be willing to suffer that reputational damage if he was personally excited by it). Lots more detail on the discussion on this post.
1I have temporarily given this post a title that seemed reasonable, as its title was broken. Hope it's OK as a placeholder, @Ruby!
PSA: Whether a post is on the frontpage category has very little to do with whether moderators think it's good. "Frontpage + Downvote" is a move I execute relatively frequently.
The criteria are basically:
- Is it timeless? News, organisational announcements and so on are rarely timeless (sometimes timeful things can be talked about in timeless ways, like writing about a theory of how groups work with references to an ongoing election).
- Is it relevant to LessWrong? The LessWrong topics are basically how to think better, how to make the world better and building models of how parts of the world work.
- Is it not 'inside baseball'? This is sort of about timelessness and sort of about relevance. This covers organisational announcements, most criticism of actors in the space, and so on.
I feel like it's pretty accurate to say that a community of job seekers are stucturally power-seeking, and this is kind of interesting though it also defangs a bunch of the social intuition against power-seeking to look at it through a bloodless "structural" lens.
The size