This is an edge case, but just flagging that it's a bit unclear to me how to apply this to my own post in a useful way. As I've disclosed in the post itself:

OpenAI's o3 found the idea for the dovetailing procedure. The proof of the efficient algorithmic Kraft coding in the appendix is mine. The entire post is written by myself, except the last paragraph of the following section, which was first drafted by GPT-5.

Does this count as Level 3 or 4? o3 provided a substantial idea, but the resulting proof was entirely written down by myself. I'm also unsure whether the full drafting of precisely one paragraph (which summarizes the rest of the post) by GPT-5 counts as editing or the writing of substantial parts. 

I don’t know what “all-too-plausibly” means. Depending on the probabilities that this implies I may agree or disagree.

Fwiw., my hair grew longer and people often point that out, but never has anyone followed with “looks good”.

I think the compute they spend on inference will also just get scaled up over time. 

I think people don’t usually even try to figure something like that out, or are even aware of the option. So if you publicly announce that a user has deactivated their account X times, then this is information that almost no one would otherwise ever receive. 

I also have the sense that it’s better to not do that, even though I have a hard time explaining in words why that is.

A NeurIPS paper on scaling laws from 1993, shared by someone on twitter.

Is there a way to filter on Lesswrong for all posts from the alignment forum?

I often like to just see what's on the alignment forum, but I dislike that I don't see most Lesswrong comments when viewing those posts on the alignment forum. 

I suspect there’s a basic reason why futility claims are often successful in therapy/coaching: by claiming (and succeeding in convincing the client) that something can’t be changed, you reduce the client’s shame in not changing the thing. Now the client is without shame, and that’s a state of mind that makes it a priory easier to change, and focusing the change on aspects the client didn’t fail on in the past additionally increases the chance of succeeding since there’s no evidence of not succeeding on those aspects.

However, I also really care about truth, and so I really dislike such futility claims.

I feel like Cunningham's law got confirmed here. I'm really glad about all the things I learned from people who disagreed with me. 

Thanks a lot for this very insightful comment!