Great to know! Thank you for taking the time to tell me.

I'm currently building scripts to automate cross-platform event creation, so it takes less time for me to send to so many different platforms. I'll always try to keep LW + Discord, so if you Subscribe to the LW group you should receive notifications.

¹

Noting that your footnotes redirect to the substack version of your article instead of the LW footnotes

In https://secularsolstice.vercel.app/feedback, "2022 (Or, "Where Ray's Coming From")" has the lyrics of "Five Thousand Years", which seems incorrect.

Edited to say it is not your position. I'm sorry for having published this comment without checking with you.

EDIT: Originally I said that was my best understanding of Mikhail's point. Mikhail has told me it was not his point. I'm keeping this comment as that's a point that I find interesting personally.

Before Mikhail released this post, we talked for multiple house about the goal of the article and how to communicate it better. I don't like the current structure of the post, but I think Mikhail has good arguments and has gathered important data.

Here's the point I would have made instead:

Anthropic presents itself as the champion of AI safety among the AI companies. People join Anthropic because of their trust that the Anthropic leadership will take the best decisions to make the future go well.

There have been a number of incidents, detailed in this post, where it seems clear that Anthropic went against a commitment they were expected to have (pushing the frontier), where their communication was misleading (like misrepresenting the RAISE bill), or where they took actions that seem incongruous with their stated mission (like accepting investment from Gulf states).

All of those incidents most likely have explanations that were communicated internally to the Anthropic employees. Those explanations make sense, and employees believe that the leadership made the right choice.

However, from the outside, a lot of those actions look like Anthropic gradually moving away from being the company that can be trusted to do what's best for humanity. It looks like Anthropic doing whatever it can to win the race even if it increases risks, like all the other AI companies. From the outside, it looks like Anthropic is less special than it seemed at first.

There are two worlds compatible with the observations:

• One where Anthropic is still pursuing the mission, and those incidents were just the best way to pursue the mission. The Anthropic leadership is trustworthy, and their internal explanations are valid and represent their actual view.
• One where the Anthropic leadership is not reliably pursing the mission anymore, where those incidents are in fact evidence of that, but where the leadership is using its capacity of persuasion and the fact that it has access to info employees don't have, to convince them that it was all for the mission, no matter the real reasons

In the second world, working at Anthropic would not reliably improve the world. Anthropic employees would have to evaluate whether to continue working there in the same way as they would if they worked at OpenAI or any other AI company.

All current and potential Anthropic employees should notice that from the outside, it sure does look like Anthropic is not following its mission as much as it used to. There are two hypotheses that explain it. They should make sure to keep tracking both of them. They should have a plan of what they'll do if they're in the least convenient world, so they can face uncomfortable evidence. And, if they do conclude that the Anthropic leadership is not following Anthropic's mission anymore, they should take action.

Nominated. One of the posts that changed my life the most in 2024. I've eaten oatmeal at least 50 times since then, and have enjoyed the convenience and nutrition.

I'll go buy some more tomorrow

Nominated. I used the calculator linked in this post to determine whether to take up insurance since then.

Nominated. The hostile telepath problem immediately entered my library of standards hypothesis to test for debugging my behavior and helping others do so, and sparked many lively conversations in my rationalist circles.

I'm glad I reread it today.

Signals of Competence

Draft post made during Inkhaven. Interested in feedback.

Signals of Competence is the model I use to advise friends on how to build career capital.

When deciding who to hire, an organization will assess the competence of the candidates by looking at various signals that they sent in their CV, cover letter, interview or work test.

Those signals are a point on those two main dimensions:

• Reach/Breadth: how wide of a population understands the signal. Harvard degree is high. Having made a specific niche software is narrow.
• Detail/Depth: how much of a detailed picture of your competence does it paint. Degree only signals you’re in the degree-holder distribution, it’s very shallow. A portfolio shows specific things you made by yourself, it’s deeper. Having worked with someone for years gives them a detailed model of how you work and what you’re good at, it’s as deep as it gets.

Signals of Competence are of two types:

• Individual: Historically, all signals of competence were of the form “Here is an example of my work” or “I worked with you or your friend before so you trust me”. Those signals are usually detailed, but as they’re specific to you, they don’t work beyond your social circles.
• Institutional: Institutions were built to create signal of competence that are portable (e.g. degrees, certifications). The trust is no more in the specific individual, but in the institution who attests of their competence

Small and Big organizations generally care about different signals

• In big organizations, recruiters usually don’t have the technical knowledge to assess detailed signals of competence. They will rely on broad ones, like degrees. To get those, you have to max out the institutional signals, who will be understandable by an MBA without domain specific knowledge.
• In small organization, the cost of a bad hire is much higher, and the recruiter will be much more technical. There, they will want to get the most detailed signal they can, to reduce the risk you’ll tank the company. You’ll want to have specific personal connection or direct experience working on their topic.

Your CV is the collection of those signals. There are three ways you can improve how good it is:

• More detailed signals: build up a portfolio in the specific industry you want to get in, work with people who can attest of your competence and recommend you, publish in the recognized venues of the field → increase your chances to break into a specific field
• More widely legible signals: get to a top university, work in big tech, anything with wide brand recognition → increase your ability to pivot to any industry
• Push the Pareto Frontier of breath/depth: being maintainer of a famous open source project is a widely understood signal in tech which gives you lots of credibility, even though it’s not worth anything outside tech

Recruiters look for three kind of signals:

• Technical Competence: are you good at the specific thing the org is doing?
• Executive Function: are you a reliable person that will get shit done on time?
• Culture Fit: are you someone that they’ll enjoy working with or will you make them miserable?

Make sure you signal your competence in those three.

Its population advantage had vastly reduced by the end of the 19th century already, as France was the first country to go through a demographic transition in the 18th century. AFAIK  its relative population compared to other western countries has been stable since WWII.

(If this seems mean, I think I have equally mean critiques about how every other country is screwing up. I'm just calling out France here because the claims in the post are about France.)

Yeah I realized this post did make me sound like a patriot lol. I'm not convinced of France's relevance, nor its irrelevance. I'm writing those posts for myself to figure out whether France matters, and to help other people working in AI policy to have a good model of France's motivations in the AI race.