The tree of https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/adk5xv5Q4hjvpEhhh/meta-new-moderation-tools-and-moderation-guidelines?commentId=uaAQb6CsvJeaobXMp spans over two hundred comments from ~fifteen authors by now, so I think it is time to list the major points raised there.

Please take "uld" as abbreviation for "in current state of LessWrong, to proceed closer to being actually less wrong AND also build path to further success, moderation should"; though it would be interesting to know if you think the optimal tactic would change later.

Feel free to agree/disagree-react! Results of tallying up the comments surprised me in terms of net agreement (or perhaps I self-gerrymandered the major points to those unintuitive results, so there is a need to check).

1. uld use emotional tone and user comfort as a major factor whether comment stands.
   Negation: uld not decide based on emotional tone, except borderline cases and rules stated in advance such as personal insults.
2. uld not use user comfort at all when deciding if comment stands. (at pain of writers' feedback loop that being offended or off-put by more criticizing comments will reduce amount of them) Negation: user comfort is an input into moderation process.
3. uld favor focus on content truth-value as the primary factor whether comment stands.
   Negation: correct comments may be eligible to be acted against, depending on their other properties.
4. uld see that comments try politely guiding author to be less wrong.
   Negation: comments may use whatever technique, symmetric or asymmetric, for the original author to not post wrong takes as frequently.
5. uld consider deleting factually wrong comments.
   Negation: wrong comments should be kept in the record.
6. uld be at least two-place, to consider whose post is the comment located under.
   Negation: uld be the same regardless of author of the original post (except, possibly, off-topic comments).
7. uld be at least two-place, and include who wrote the comment.
   Negation: uld be mostly the same for different comment authors.
8. uld maintain identical comment visibility for all users to preserve common knowledge.
   Negation: asymmetrical visibility may be implemented. (with debate participants quoting from muted-for-others comments if they deem them relevant)
9. uld allow for spaces that explicitly protect low-polished contributions.
   Negation: spaces for less polished contributions should be created with tools not involving moderation.
10. uld be designed to show who is banned from commenting on the post, without extra work. (so that absence of critic's comments is not taken as evidence for post being right)
    Negation: list of users banned from the post may be maintained separately. (to not distract from discussion)
11. uld be designed to show rebukes even if they are top-level critique posts and author of such is banned from the post.
    Negation: critical comments are under the post, critical posts are in ping-backs and author may decide not to provide them better visibility.

Branch counting stops making sense when there are uncountably many branches, and there are (presumably).

I wish I had some toolkit for taking things I intellectually know to be right / true, and making them "feel" true in my deepest self, so that I can then more readily act on them.

I think you cannot do this any more than force yourself to believe something. Indeed, both systems are learning from what you see to be true and what succeeds; if you believe that intuitive system is not judging correctly, you should try experiencing things more deeply (reflect on success more, come back to see if the thing flourishes/helps others/whatever); if you believe that reasoning system is not judging correctly, you should try it on more everyday actions and check if all emotionally relevant factors got included.

The systems will approximately agree because they both try to discern truth, not because they are bound to be equal to each other.

P.S. turns out I essentially rephrased @leogao ; still posting this in hopes an explanation is useful

This is fixable by
a) hosting own model, and double-checking that code does not log incoming content in any way,
b) potentially, having that model on client side (over time, it might shrink to some manageable size).

"Trust their own observations" might be over-anthropomorphizing LLMs which are trained to continue text or to follow instructions. Are there many training examples where person reflected on their past replies and said, in writing (since any thoughts are lost to model training), "I could not have written this" / "thjs edit was not done by me"?

The question stands as is for future AI models.

Do you happen to recall any of them?

ZK-SNARK or ZK-STARK are literally those. LLM is software and therefore subject to them (the prover might do a lot of work, but it is ultimately finite, and verifier is quite compact). They allow to hide certain inputs, if we desire to hide seed from third parties.

Otherwise what would be stopping me from just crafting an appropriate history and signing it with the seed?

The fact that tokens pseudo-randomly sampled by this seed will not match whatever is in history?

There are succinct proof systems that message matches the model plus chat history with a certain seed (which might be present or hidden by the proof) as well, they do not require PoW (but are thus vulnerable to resampling LLM's output multiple times). And, of course, LLMs do not have capabilities to verify all that math.

For benefit of future readers, I have a nitpick on technical details.

I could not lower your scheme of outcome pump into the program which would be executed in fact (given a couple of magical functions receive_future_info() and send_info_back()).

This time machine sends in the past only one bit of information, which is called “consistency bit”. This bit is 1, if some initial condition is met. The bit is 0 if the condition is not met, and in that case the receiver, located in the past, tries different initial conditions to satisfy this measure. 

For example, a Novikov machine can be used to guess a cipher. 

• If 0 is returned from the future, a random number generator produces a new number and after that it is tested.
• If it is not the correct cipher, 0 returns to the past, and everything starts from the beginning.
• But if the cipher is correct, then 1 is sent to the past, and the loop stops.

Given >=3 options (A, B, C...), machine could guess B, receive 0, resample to C, test C to find out it fails, send 0. A had been the correct answer all along, and the timeline is consistent.
To patch the protocol, you would want "remember the received bit $x$, send $x$ back if test succeeds and $\neg x$ otherwise".

Unfortunately I believe the whole article has same level of quality, despite its interesting ideas.

Have you tried to compare the base model at different checkpoints (or even between versions) yet?

Strong downvoted. This article raises a concern of apparently extremely large scale (what happens during time travel) but supports it with invalid reasoning. I believe you should explore this direction more carefully.

In the Everettian multiverse, this action would create a new branch of reality where the 2019 version of ourselves receives this message.

That does not precisely match MWI which states that our uncountably infinite amount of branches splits&merges constantly, with no other reason for new states to appear; do you perhaps mean that a certain bunch of branches would receive more measure?

There are two main theories of time, eternalism and presentism. In the presentism theory, only the now moment of time actually exists, and in the externalism there is a timeless universe, in which past, present and future coexist simultaneously.

The validity of eternalism is a necessary condition (but it is not enough) for time travel, as the past still exists in it.

Paradoxically time travel requires that time doesn’t exist: past and future should exist similarly to the objects in space dimension in the same modal status as now.

From perspective of presentism: if there is a moment where they remember that some object/information had suddenly appeared out of thin air, and at this moment the same object disappears into the thin air, then that is time travel. I do not see any paradox here.

This may mean that subjectively inhabitants of such a loop may experience it infinitely many times – even if they were not sent back in time in the time machine and only a few bits of information were sent.

That requires that experience of an inhabitant is unrelated to their brain matter which had changed at most finitely many times. In particular, it must make it impossible to report on such an experience or to witness it in someone other.