Thanks, good to know. So I assume there is an incentive difference between monetary incentives that can be distributed in such a way, and the incentive of being able to say that you won a tournament (maybe also as a job qualification).

I'm a bit confused about forecasting tournaments and would appreciate any comments:

Suppose you take part in such a tournament. 

You could predict as accurately as you can and get a good score. But let's say there are some other equally good forecasters in the tournament and it becomes a random draw who wins. On expectation, all forecasters of the same quality have the same forecasts. If there are many good forecasters, your chances of winning become very low.

However, you could include some outlier predictions in your predictions. Then you lower your expected accuracy, but you also incrase your chances of winning the tournament if these outlier probabilities come true. 

Therefore, I would expect a lot of noise in the relation between forecasting quality and being a tournament winner.

Yes, a one-time investment is different from permanent effort. But they both can be very costly.  In my original post, I meant all things that raise the cost / time investment / whatever of being a parent (and did not use the term "parenting"). I also think it is totally great if people invest a lot of time, effort, money, and other things into having great children. But I think there is a tension with saying that society should lower the demands on parents, so that people have more kids. Parts of the same community seem to have really high standards, and other parts say that we need to lower the standards, and I do not yet see how the tension is resolved.

How much time do you need for this per week, including preparation etc? 

I would include posts on health-optimizing genetic manipulation and similar things in this category. All of this is okay if just chosen but in conflict with "having kids is too costly". Similar for homeschooling.

Maybe, but that does not seem to be what @jackjack meant, though I am not sure whether I understand what he means, and why it's different now.

my fellow instructor Jack Carroll said they liked the participants for the first time instead of feeling at war

I find it sad to read and did not expect that Jack always felt at war and did not like previous participants.

This post emphasizes that truthseeking is the foundation for other principles, and that you cannot costlessly deprioritise truthseeking. The post gives practical advice how to consciously apply the principle of truthseeking. It also encourages positive behavior like pushing back against truth-inhibiting behavior. In some parts, the article seems to me not to be fully focused and Elizabeth herself writes "In practice it’s mostly a bunch of pointers to facets of truthseeking and ideas for how to do better", but overall I think these pointers are very valuable.

Vibes among rationalists and some adjacent communities/blogs:

"Schools are bad, you need to homeschool your kids", "improve your kid's life outcomes by doing a lot of research and going through complicated procedures!"

Also:

"It is way too hard to be a parent nowadays, therefore nobody wants kids anymore."

This post raises a relevant objection to a common pro-AI position, using an easily understandable analogy. Katja's argument shows that the best-case pro-AI position is not as self-evident as it may seem.