LessWrong 2.0 Reader

I think people are doing those checks?

No. You can tell because they can't have an interesting conversation about it, because they don't have surrounding mental content (such as analyses of examples that stand up to interrogation, or open questions, or cruxes that aren't stupid). (This is in contrast to several people who can have an interesting conversation about, even if I think they're wrong and making mistakes and so on.)

But I did think about those ideas, and evaluate if they seemed true.

Of course I can't tell from this sentence, but I'm pretty skeptical both of you in particular and of other people in the broad reference class, that most of them have done this in a manner that really does greatly attenuate the dangers of deference [LW · GW].

Of course not. I mean, any reasonable standard? Garrabrant induction, bro. "Produces deep novel insight"

Seems to me the name AI safety is currently still widely used, no? As it covers much more than just alignment strategies, by including also stuff like control and governance

the pop-culture chakra model comes from modern Theosophical books, not ancient Indian scripture

Kind of true, although the core of it is a system of 6 or 7 chakras which the author acknowledges (way down in the comments) was dominant in India "by 1500". 

This made me curious about the credentials of Transcendental Meditation, the system espoused by David Lynch (RIP) and Jerry Seinfeld among others. Turns out their guru was a student of the head of one of the four big Vedic monasteries founded over 1000 years ago by the Kant of Hinduism (that's just my name for him), Adi Shankara. So at least in this case, there are no troubling Russian or British intermediaries. :-)  

I just tried this with o3-mini-high and o3-mini. o3-mini-high identified and prevented the fork correctly, while o3-mini did not even correctly identify it lost.

Maybe the ending doesn't make sense to anybody and I'm just measuring how dadaist I can write before someone calls my bluff.

Unless that is the meta-commentary I'm attempting to make about Scott Alexander's insinuation that sophistication is mostly just shibboleths. Which would make this post truly meaningful, but only on the meta-level. That would be appropriate for a story exploring the nature of fine art.

Of course, the real heist would be to do both; to write a scissor statement, where some people extract an obvious indirect meaning, while others conclude that the Palace of Hidden Doors contains only a small, featureless room.

Is taste a priesthood, a science, or a game of poker? I call your blind and raise you one hundred and twenty-seven words.

I'm not sure I understand the question.

Do you mean, what do I suggest doing when it's equally easy to add something new to the list vs fixing a ball that's been dropped?

I think this approach is best used when fixing a dropped ball is costly. Consider the example of taking fifteen children on a hike. Fixing the situation if you have fourteen children at the end of the hike is stressful.

I often spell it Lsusr because "lsusr" looks too similar to "Isusr" in certain fonts.

It might help if you spelled it as LSuser. (I think you can change that in the settings).

Yup!