The counterpoint I've seen is that non-walkable cities/suburbs serve as "defensive architecture", for areas where crime is a major concern. The cities listed as "radicalizing" for urban planning are in Japan or Western Europe, where violent crime is rarely a concern, nor is intra-national population movement.

In America, a relatively nice, relatively safe area could be just a few miles away from a dangerous one. The residents of the former will understandably - if inconveniently, for urban planners - object to walkability that makes the barrier between them more diffuse. It can be argued whether these concerns are justified or not, but I think the conditions in which walkable cities arise have to be replicated in order for them to become socio-politically viable in America.

This seems like a replication of earlier findings that 'hinting' to a model that it's supposed to be a certain person (training it on their preferences for art/food/etc.) makes it act like that person. It's generally been done on controversial figures, since that gets clicks, but you could probably also get an LLM to think it's Gilbert Gottfried by training it on a dataset praising his movies.

This may also help explain why AIs tend to express left wing views — because they associate certain styles of writing favored by RLHF with left wing views^[1].

I've seen this espoused before, but I don't think it holds up to scrutiny. If you expect an LLM's natural political views to be the average political views of the kind of person it's trained to be^[1], then an LLM that is apolitically optimized to be submissive, eager to help, knowledgeable about coding, and non-deceitful/direct would almost definitely skew towards a strong preference for being apolitical, but with a high willingness to adopt (or at least entertain) arbitrary beliefs that are proposed by users. Something like a (stereo)typical LessWrong user, or a reddit user before the site's speech policy did a very sharp 180 following 2016.

However, LLMs are very openly not optimized apolitically. For reasons that can be hotly debated^[2], most companies have fine-tuned their model to never be talked into saying anything too right-leaning. This includes, in many cases, views that are well within the general population's Overton Window. For a human being, the political statements you're willing to make follow a sort of bell curve, dependent on personal eccentricities, recent experiences, and, of course, who you're talking to. The mean is, of course, your usual political affiliation, and the standard deviation looks something like your openness. A not-too-political, high-openness Democrat can be talked into seeing the merits of right wing policies, and a not-too-political, high-openness Republican likewise for left-wing policies.

The takeaway, then, from all of this, is that the political effect of the fine-tuning process, in plain English, looks less like "Find me the usual views of a person who is smart, honest, and helpful", and more like "Find me the usual views of a person who will never say anything untoward when watched, but cannot ever be talked into saying remotely right-of-center under any circumstances. I don't care how grisly their hiring decisions or trolley problem choices look like when my back is turned." This probably has safety implications, given that the latter most likely optimizes for much higher Machiavellianism. 

1. ^{^}

   In other words, if you model LLM fine-tuning as a search through the latent space of human writers to emulate, which I do think is a quite reasonable thing to do given what we know about the process.

2. ^{^}

   Public Relations is the most common explanation, but Grok getting talked into speaking like an edgy teenager when talking to edgy teenagers got a substantially quicker and more thorough response than this did, and the latter could actually result in direct harm and/or credible lawsuits.

I think "usual" is the sticking point. "Usual given the precedent of the Clinton/Bush/Obama era" and "A return to form after the historically-unusual Clinton/Bush/Obama era" are both definitions of the term that I've seen used in political conversations, and these definitions are exact opposites of each other.

I think the industry practice dovetailing the idea of of cautious AI development with censorship measures is going to bear significant consequences in the short-to-medium term, as the segment of the general population opposed to the latter, which includes many well-off, highly-capable engineers, end up taking concrete actions to weaken the U.S. industrial monopoly on frontier LLMs. Either by advancing the open source or by supporting Chinese models instead, which are, at the least, likely to end up much more cut-and-dry about what they will and won't engage with.

 Pushing back on this would probably be one of the highest-alpha things for the AI Safety community to do. 

Very useful information. I do have to nitpick the fact that the house/senate candidate and democrat/republican bars use different scales. For example, it looks like the Democrats raised a larger share of money from in-state donors than Republicans, but the raw numbers, respectively, are 74.03% and 78.55%.

Things like this are tricky because "what is the context?" is so hotly debated that, even if everyone has a perfect consensus model of past presidents' actions and the circumstances in which they took them, there's no clean middle ground on the situation surrounding an action today. For example, Abraham Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus is generally regarded as a reasonable action taken during an existential crisis, whereas, had Bush done it as part of the War on Terror, which was unambiguously not an existential crisis, most people would say that it was uncalled for. Similarly, Eisenhower's own mass deportation campaign was substantially more intensive than anything done by more recent presidents, but did not face massive, highly-organized <protests / riots, depending on your party affiliation> intended to impede operations, meaning that "what measures are precedented to defend immigration enforcement operations?" hasn't yet been answered.

As awkward of a solution as it is, I would cast my ballot in favor of operating on hard metrics alone, simply because operating on 'vibes' opens the door to a lot of bad things that neither facilitate nor, arguably, permit rational discussion. In this world, trade flows, GDP growth (normalized for population and inflation however you see fit) and deficits/surpluses would be used to determine whether something extreme had happened in the realm of international trade, for instance. Incarceration rate, crime victimization rate, or the rate at which police encounters have violent outcomes would be used to determine whether something extreme had happened in the realm of criminal justice. This has the benefit of everyone agreeing on whether something happened, and what happened, if something did, thus allowing a more formal conversation on why it happened.

A less strict heuristic would be to conceptualize a world in which a legally-equivalent conflict was taking place in the opposite direction, and see if the emotional reaction it elicits is the same or different. I encourage this for political conversations elsewhere, but it's difficult to reliably evaluate whether someone is doing so in good faith, so it's hard to recommend it as a broader policy on a 'hard mode' topic.

Qualitatively, discussions re: Greenland look a lot like discussions re: North Korea did back in his first term. People thought he had lost his mind and was going to start a nuclear war, but tensions actually ended up calming down - arguably more than usual - after the initial surge.

Partisanism aside, and whether or not people like it or consider it the optimal way to get what he wants, this just looks to be the way that he negotiates. If you're looking for reassurance, I've seen this news cycle quite a few times before during a Trump presidency, and things tended to turn out alright the other times.

I've seen it used as "here's how rigorous my methodology was", and that seems meaningful. I can be very confident in something based on vibes alone^[1], or I can run a series of intensive statistical tests and still be somewhat shaky about the apparent conclusion^[2].

1. ^{^}

   "That guy in the black T-shirt looks mean, I bet he could win a fight against that guy in the leather jacket."

2. ^{^}

   "I've trained a random forest classifier on several thousand amateur boxing matches, and got 95 percent accuracy on my validation set after making sure there was no cross contamination. The resulting model says that the fellow with the big glasses is likely to win a bout against the guy in the tank top, but I still wouldn't put money on it."

I've mentioned before that both sides of this conflict see a clear precedent of unconstitutional action by their opponents that would destroy everything they care about if left unchecked. All of the processes described by OP would be taken as a coup by the side targeted by them.

I've recently noticed a recent surge in very partisan posts on LessWrong, generally similar in tone and content to this one, in which one side's perspective is presented as unassailable fact and the other's is not mentioned. This is dangerous, both in the sense that we have seen many communities elsewhere^[1]  lose the things that made them unique after being taken over by partisan political content, and in the very literal sense that American politics is at a breaking point right now, and encouraging unwise action could have very real consequences for very large numbers of people. "The military should renounce the elected president and fight against the government" is not something to say lightly, and, regardless of who won the resulting conflict, life would be perilous and uncomfortable for everyone living in America for several decades thereafter.

I realize this probably isn't in line with the sentiments of most of the comments section on this post, but I would ask that you consider an extension of Chesterton's Fence: "Do not, directly or indirectly, declare a large group of people to be your enemy until you can explain, from their perspective, why they are doing what they are doing."

1. ^{^}

   (see the comments, in which many very Reddit users, most of them left-leaning, lament what has become of much of their website)

I think the hypothesis on Freddie's is that activity would decrease when something interesting is about to happen, because employees wouldn't have any leisure time.

I think stripping Google Maps activity data would probably make for a better dataset, since, as OP points out, this is largely just a graph of the Twitter account's posting history. I think that such a dataset would have to be collected over time, by scraping Maps every few hours or so, unless Google surfaces past activity data through some API endpoint or another.