Now, you might think "Why not bring the deadline back to like 8pm, so that people have the night off?". But that's kind of antithetical to what Inkhaven is here to offer. Should I just cut out 4 hours of their day where they can't write? I assure you, they wouldn't spend the late hours precociously working on tomorrow's stuff. They selected into being the kind of people who needed an externally imposed deadline to get stuff done. They'd just be losing a good chunk of writing each day.

I'm not observing the residents very closely, but I tentatively roll to disbelieve that most of the residents who are publishing last-minute are making full use of the day to write.  My guess is that having e.g. a 10 pm deadline wouldn't reduce "active writing time" by anything like 2 hours for most residents; they would simply "get down to business" earlier in the day.  Someone mentioned that this would substantially reduce the amount of time that residents have to integrate feedback from the feedback circles, which happen right before dinner.  That seems true and somewhat difficult to avoid given the current structure.  I still think that forcing the last-minute writing to happen two hours earlier has a lot of benefits: residents are less tired when they're doing their last minute writing & editing, and they have more time to socialize, unwind, and spend some time doing less "pressured" research/writing/ideating/etc.

It can vary enormously based on risk factors, choice of car, and quantity of coverage, but that does still sound extremely high to me.  I think even if you're a 25-yo male with pretty generous coverage above minimum liability, you probably won't be paying more than ~$300/mo unless you have recent accidents on your record.  Gas costs obviously scale ~linearly with miles driven, but even if your daily commute is a 40 mile round-trip, that's still only like $200/mo.  (There are people with longer commutes than that, but not ones that you can easily substitute for with an e-bike; even 20 miles each way seems like a stretch.)

This inspired me experiment with a "loyal Vizier"-themed system prompt.  Not amazing, but maybe there's something there.

I expect this has most of the costs of keeping them running full-time with few of the other benefits.

(iirc Eric thinks that the difference for Bores was that it was ~20% better to donate on the first day, that the difference would be larger for Bores than for Wiener, and that "first day vs. not first day" was most of the difference, so if it's more than few percent more costly for you to donate now rather than 2 months from now I'm not sure it makes sense to do that.)

Oh, alas.  Thank you for the correction!

(I still expect OpenPhil the LLC to have been paying comparable amounts to its most-remunerated employees, but not so confidently that I would assert it outright.)

OpenPhil's 5th-highest-compensated employee earned about $184k in 2023^[1], which gives you a ceiling.  Anthropic currently extends offers of ~$550k to mid-level^[2] engineers and researchers.  Joe's role might not be on the same ladder as other technical roles, but companies like Anthropic tend to pay pretty well across the board.

Edit: retracted first half of the claim, see this reply.

1. ^{^}

   According to their public Form 990 filing.

2. ^{^}

   I realize the job title says "Senior Software Engineer", but given the way their ladder is structured, I think mid-level is probably closer (though it's fuzzy).

Curated.  I disagree with some stronger/broader forms of the various claims re: missing "mental elements", but I'm not sure you intend the stronger forms of those claims and they don't seem load bearing for the rest of the piece in any case.  However, this is an excellent explanation^[1] of why LLM-generated text is low-value to engage with when presented as a human output, especially in contexts like LessWrong.  Notably, most of these reasons are robust to LLM output improving in quality/truthfulness (though I do expect some trade-offs to become much more difficult if LLM outputs start to dominate top human outputs on certain dimensions).

1. ^{^}

   To the point where I'm tempted to update our policy about LLM writing on LessWrong to refer to it.

No.  It turns out after a bit of digging that this might be technically possible even though we're a ~7-person team, but it'd still be additional overhead and I'm not sure I buy that the concerns it'd be alleviating are that reasonable^[1].

1. ^{^}

   Not a confident claim.  I personally wouldn't be that reassured by the mere existence of such a log in this case, compared to my baseline level of trust in the other admins, but obviously my epistemic state is different from that of someone who doesn't work on the site.  Still, I claim that it would not substantially reduce the (annualized) likelihood of an admin illicitly looking at someone's drafts/DMs/votes; take that as you will.  I'd be much more reassured (in terms of relative risk reduction, not absolute) by the actual inability of admins to run such queries without a second admin's thumbs-up, but that would impose an enormous burden on our ability to do our jobs day-to-day without a pretty impractical level of investment in new tooling (after which I expect the burden would merely be "very large").