Posts

AXRP Episode 28 - Suing Labs for AI Risk with Gabriel Weil 2024-04-17T21:42:46.992Z
AXRP Episode 27 - AI Control with Buck Shlegeris and Ryan Greenblatt 2024-04-11T21:30:04.244Z
Daniel Kahneman has died 2024-03-27T15:59:14.517Z
Superforecasting the Origins of the Covid-19 Pandemic 2024-03-12T19:01:15.914Z
Common Philosophical Mistakes, according to Joe Schmid [videos] 2024-03-03T00:15:47.899Z
11 diceware words is enough 2024-02-15T00:13:43.420Z
Most experts believe COVID-19 was probably not a lab leak 2024-02-02T19:28:00.319Z
n of m ring signatures 2023-12-04T20:00:06.580Z
AXRP Episode 26 - AI Governance with Elizabeth Seger 2023-11-26T23:00:04.916Z
How to type Aleksander Mądry's last name in LaTeX 2023-11-21T00:50:07.189Z
Aaron Silverbook on anti-cavity bacteria 2023-11-20T03:06:19.524Z
If a little is good, is more better? 2023-11-04T07:10:05.943Z
On Frequentism and Bayesian Dogma 2023-10-15T22:23:10.747Z
AXRP Episode 25 - Cooperative AI with Caspar Oesterheld 2023-10-03T21:50:07.552Z
Watermarking considered overrated? 2023-07-31T21:36:05.268Z
AXRP Episode 24 - Superalignment with Jan Leike 2023-07-27T04:00:02.106Z
AXRP Episode 23 - Mechanistic Anomaly Detection with Mark Xu 2023-07-27T01:50:02.808Z
AXRP announcement: Survey, Store Closing, Patreon 2023-06-28T23:40:02.537Z
AXRP Episode 22 - Shard Theory with Quintin Pope 2023-06-15T19:00:01.340Z
[Linkpost] Interpretability Dreams 2023-05-24T21:08:17.254Z
Difficulties in making powerful aligned AI 2023-05-14T20:50:05.304Z
AXRP Episode 21 - Interpretability for Engineers with Stephen Casper 2023-05-02T00:50:07.045Z
Podcast with Divia Eden and Ronny Fernandez on the strong orthogonality thesis 2023-04-28T01:30:45.681Z
AXRP Episode 20 - ‘Reform’ AI Alignment with Scott Aaronson 2023-04-12T21:30:06.929Z
[Link] A community alert about Ziz 2023-02-24T00:06:00.027Z
Video/animation: Neel Nanda explains what mechanistic interpretability is 2023-02-22T22:42:45.054Z
[linkpost] Better Without AI 2023-02-14T17:30:53.043Z
AXRP: Store, Patreon, Video 2023-02-07T04:50:05.409Z
Podcast with Oli Habryka on LessWrong / Lightcone Infrastructure 2023-02-05T02:52:06.632Z
AXRP Episode 19 - Mechanistic Interpretability with Neel Nanda 2023-02-04T03:00:11.144Z
First Three Episodes of The Filan Cabinet 2023-01-18T19:20:06.588Z
Podcast with Divia Eden on operant conditioning 2023-01-15T02:44:29.706Z
On Blogging and Podcasting 2023-01-09T00:40:00.908Z
Things I carry almost every day, as of late December 2022 2022-12-30T07:40:01.261Z
Announcing The Filan Cabinet 2022-12-30T03:10:00.494Z
Takeaways from a survey on AI alignment resources 2022-11-05T23:40:01.917Z
AXRP Episode 18 - Concept Extrapolation with Stuart Armstrong 2022-09-03T23:12:01.242Z
AXRP Episode 17 - Training for Very High Reliability with Daniel Ziegler 2022-08-21T23:50:20.513Z
AXRP Episode 16 - Preparing for Debate AI with Geoffrey Irving 2022-07-01T22:20:18.456Z
AXRP Episode 15 - Natural Abstractions with John Wentworth 2022-05-23T05:40:19.293Z
AXRP Episode 14 - Infra-Bayesian Physicalism with Vanessa Kosoy 2022-04-05T23:10:09.817Z
AXRP Episode 13 - First Principles of AGI Safety with Richard Ngo 2022-03-31T05:20:17.883Z
What’s the chance a smart London resident dies of a Russian nuke in the next month? 2022-03-10T19:20:01.434Z
A Nice Representation of the Laplacian 2022-02-12T03:20:00.918Z
AXRP Episode 12 - AI Existential Risk with Paul Christiano 2021-12-02T02:20:17.041Z
Even if you're right, you're wrong 2021-11-22T05:40:00.747Z
The Meta-Puzzle 2021-11-22T05:30:01.031Z
Everything Studies on Cynical Theories 2021-10-27T01:31:20.608Z
AXRP Episode 11 - Attainable Utility and Power with Alex Turner 2021-09-25T21:10:26.995Z
Announcing the Vitalik Buterin Fellowships in AI Existential Safety! 2021-09-21T00:33:08.074Z

Comments

Comment by DanielFilan on AXRP Episode 27 - AI Control with Buck Shlegeris and Ryan Greenblatt · 2024-04-16T17:57:56.485Z · LW · GW

Thanks for finding this! Will link it in the transcript.

Comment by DanielFilan on AXRP Episode 27 - AI Control with Buck Shlegeris and Ryan Greenblatt · 2024-04-12T23:00:55.799Z · LW · GW

oops, thanks for the reminder

Comment by DanielFilan on AXRP Episode 27 - AI Control with Buck Shlegeris and Ryan Greenblatt · 2024-04-11T21:59:00.343Z · LW · GW

Sorry, it will be a bit before the video uploads. I'll hide the link until then.

Comment by DanielFilan on [deleted post] 2024-04-11T21:40:35.864Z

Proposal: merge with the separate tag "AI Control"

Comment by DanielFilan on I was raised by devout Mormons, AMA [&|] Soliciting Advice · 2024-03-13T22:23:44.762Z · LW · GW

How would you rate the Book of Mormon as a book? What's your favourite part?

Comment by DanielFilan on I was raised by devout Mormons, AMA [&|] Soliciting Advice · 2024-03-13T20:29:47.525Z · LW · GW

I recently heard of the book How to leave the Mormon church by Alyssa Grenfell, which might be good. Based on an interview with the author, it seemed like it was focussed on nuts-and-bolts stuff (e.g. "practically how do you explore alcohol in a way that isn't dangerous") and explicitly avoiding a permanent state of having an "ex-mormon" identity, which strikes me as healthy (altho I think some doubt is warranted on how good the advice is, given that the author's social media presence is primarily focussed on being ex-mormon). The book is associated with a website.

NB: I have a casual interest in high-demand religions, but have never been a part of one (with the arguable exception of the rationality/EA community).

Comment by DanielFilan on Jobs, Relationships, and Other Cults · 2024-03-13T19:01:08.304Z · LW · GW

My guess is this won't work in all cases, because norm enforcement is usually yes/no, and needs to be judged by people with little information. They can't handle "you can do any 2 of these 5 things, but no more" or "you can do this but only if you implement it really skillfully". So either everyone is allowed to impose 80 hour weeks, or no one can work 80 hour weeks, and I don't like either of those options.

I think this might be wrong - for example, my understanding is that there are some kinds of jobs where it's considered normal for people to work 80-hour weeks, and other kinds where it isn't. Maybe the issue is that the "kind of job" norms can easily operate on lets you pick out things like "finance" but not "jobs that have already made one costly vulnerability bid"?

Comment by DanielFilan on Are we so good to simulate? · 2024-03-04T20:18:47.723Z · LW · GW

Katja responds on substack:

I'm calling people who know where they are (i.e. are not confused) not in simulations, for the sake of argument. But this shouldn't matter, except for understanding each other.

It sounds like you are saying that ~100x more people live in confused simulations than base reality, but I'm questioning that. The resources to run a brain are about the same whether it's a 'simulation' or a mind in touch with the real world. Why would future civilization spend radically more resources on simulations than on minds in the world? (Or if the non-confused simulations are also relevantly minds in the world, then there are a lot more of them than the confused simulations, so we are back to quite low probability of being mistaken.)

(I plan on continuing the conversation there, not here)

Comment by DanielFilan on Are we so good to simulate? · 2024-03-04T07:27:48.797Z · LW · GW

I don't think this argument quite works? Like, suppose each base civilization simulates 100,000 civilizations. 100 are confused and think they're base civilizations, and the rest are non-confused and know they're simulations being run by a base civilization. In this world, most civilizations are right about their status, but most civilizations who think they're base civilizations are wrong.

Comment by DanielFilan on Critiques of the AI control agenda · 2024-02-23T23:51:51.422Z · LW · GW

Hmm I think somehow the problem is that the equals sign in your url is being encoded as an ASCII value with a % sign etc rather than being treated as a raw equals sign, weird.

Comment by DanielFilan on Critiques of the AI control agenda · 2024-02-23T23:48:18.348Z · LW · GW

For one particularly legible example, see this comment by janus.

Link should presumably be to this comment.

Comment by DanielFilan on Brute Force Manufactured Consensus is Hiding the Crime of the Century · 2024-02-23T08:33:38.952Z · LW · GW

Oh - it could be that my peer score is artificially high due to using Metaculus back when there were fewer peers who were good at forecasting.

Comment by DanielFilan on Brute Force Manufactured Consensus is Hiding the Crime of the Century · 2024-02-23T01:22:41.449Z · LW · GW

FWIW: in the debate, Rootclaim don't really push the line that alleged evidence for zoonosis is a Chinese cover-up, but mostly take reports as-is, and accept that one of the first outbreaks was at the Huanan Seafood Market. I think in some cases they allege that some cases weren't tracked or were suppressed, and maybe they say that some evidence is faked in passing, but it wasn't core to their argument.

Comment by DanielFilan on Brute Force Manufactured Consensus is Hiding the Crime of the Century · 2024-02-23T01:19:52.199Z · LW · GW

I think what is missing here is that this debate has been cited repeatedly in rationalist spaces, by people who were already quite engaged with the topic, familiar with the evidence, and in possession of carefully-formed views, as having been extremely valuable and informative, and having shifted their position significantly.

I'm not sure who you're referring to and can't think of examples, but in case it's me, I wasn't already very engaged with the topic or in possession of carefully-formed views.

Comment by DanielFilan on Brute Force Manufactured Consensus is Hiding the Crime of the Century · 2024-02-23T00:48:52.434Z · LW · GW

Notes:

  • Yep, the tweet thread is just me jotting down thoughts etc while watching the debate.
  • I was 75-80% convinced when I tweeted that, which was before I had finished the debate. After watching the debate, I made a sketchy Bayesian calculation that got me to 96%, but I've since backed off to maybe 66%.
    • Basically: the key question for me is whether you think one of the first outbreaks of COVID happened at the Huanan Seafood Market. Rootclaim conceded this, and as far as I can tell if this is true then it's dispositive evidence, but I have since began to doubt it.
  • One thing in favour of my judgements is that I'm at number 5 on Metaculus' leaderboard of how accurate predictors were compared to their peers, altho that mostly comes from predictions made between 2016 and April 2020, when I burnt out from forecasting on Metaculus.
    • I'm currently in the Diamond league on Manifold, which is much less impressive, and in part driven by my prediction of which way the debate would go.
Comment by DanielFilan on Brute Force Manufactured Consensus is Hiding the Crime of the Century · 2024-02-23T00:42:31.338Z · LW · GW

Isn't there a transcript?

No transcript, but the judges have documents where they outline their reasoning:

Comment by DanielFilan on 2023 Survey Results · 2024-02-18T01:41:43.122Z · LW · GW

Here's one about how many users will know how to make a dialogue: 

Comment by DanielFilan on 2023 Survey Results · 2024-02-18T01:32:27.781Z · LW · GW

Here's one about what the most common political affiliation will be: 

Comment by DanielFilan on 2023 Survey Results · 2024-02-18T01:18:03.399Z · LW · GW

 Here's a Manifold market on how many people will fill out the survey in 2024.

Comment by DanielFilan on Opinions survey 2 (with rationalism score at the end) · 2024-02-17T18:30:30.110Z · LW · GW

I got 13/18.

Comment by DanielFilan on Opinions survey (with rationalism score at the end) · 2024-02-17T18:25:46.824Z · LW · GW

What does the model predict non-rationalists would score?

Comment by DanielFilan on Opinions survey (with rationalism score at the end) · 2024-02-17T01:33:35.600Z · LW · GW

Mine was 12/24.

Comment by DanielFilan on 2023 Survey Results · 2024-02-17T00:58:43.650Z · LW · GW

I couldn’t come up with one obviously best way to show what’s going on [for the probability section]. After a lot of messing around with graphs and charts, there were two ways to display things that I settled on. 

May I suggest ridgeline plots?

Comment by DanielFilan on 2023 Survey Results · 2024-02-17T00:48:42.201Z · LW · GW

When I first looked at that graph I had no explanation for the sudden drop, but then I realized the missing years between 2016 and 2022 got me. I think what we’re looking at is a bit of a bump in 2022 (possibly due to the smaller sample) and then a return to where we were in 2016. Is that a just-so story? Eh, possibly.  

Doesn't it look like the second and third quartiles are lower than they used to be? Like, AFAICT, if you ignore 2022, you just have downward trends in those quartiles of reported IQ.

Comment by DanielFilan on 2023 Survey Results · 2024-02-17T00:37:46.736Z · LW · GW

No chance you could edit in a bit more about what the questions were? I don't really know what e.g. "Calibration IQ", "Californian LW", or "Heavy AI" mean.

Comment by DanielFilan on mike_hawke's Shortform · 2024-02-16T20:57:17.970Z · LW · GW

Seems like you should at least try it once.

Comment by DanielFilan on Brute Force Manufactured Consensus is Hiding the Crime of the Century · 2024-02-15T01:47:11.516Z · LW · GW

I think the right strategy is to assume guilt in the presence of a coverup, because then someone who is genuinely uncertain as to whether or not they caused the issue is incentivized to cooperate with investigations instead of obstruct them.

There are two ways I can read this. The first is that when we catch people covering up evidence that points to them committing a crime, we should assume that they're guilty of the underlying crime. That seems pretty bad because it's not necessarily true (altho the coverup is some evidence for it). The second is that you should assume they're guilty of the crime of covering up relevant info, and treat them as such. That does sound right, but it doesn't justify you in talking about the underlying crime as if you know who's guilty of it.

I think it's also pretty obvious that the social consensus is against lab leak not because all the experts have watched the 17 hour rootclaim debate, but because it was manufactured

I agree that the virology and epidemiology communities didn't watch the rootclaim debate, but I feel like this is jumping to the conclusion that they're gullible, rather than that they're just familiar with a bunch of data and are integrating it sensibly. The main thing that plays against it is low familiarity with the DEFUSE proposal in the GCRI survey, but I think that's plausibly explained by people not having read the whole thing (it's really long!).

Comment by DanielFilan on Brute Force Manufactured Consensus is Hiding the Crime of the Century · 2024-02-15T01:37:12.010Z · LW · GW

Here is the end of a tweet thread with links to all the slides, as well as questions the judges asked and the debaters' answers. IDK if they count as being in a 'hierarchical format'.

Comment by DanielFilan on My cover story in Jacobin on AI capitalism and the x-risk debates · 2024-02-13T05:54:10.665Z · LW · GW

[Marc Andreessen] followed it up in October with his “Techno-Optimist Manifesto,” which, in addition to praising a founder of Italian fascism

For those who were as curious as me, the person in question is Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, who Wikipedia says founded the Italian Futurist movement and also was a co-author of the Fascist Manifesto in 1919.

He seems to have had a strange relationship to Fascism as it became more prominent - my shallow read is that he supported it but was more focussed on the "national revival" part than racial hatred. Quotes from the relevant section of his Wikipedia page:

Marinetti was one of the first affiliates of the Italian Fascist Party. In 1919 he co-wrote with Alceste De Ambris the Fascist Manifesto, the original manifesto of Italian Fascism. He opposed Fascism's later exaltation of existing institutions, terming them "reactionary," and, after walking out of the 1920 Fascist party congress in disgust, withdrew from politics for three years. However, he remained a notable force in developing the party philosophy throughout the regime's existence...

As part of his campaign to overturn tradition, Marinetti also attacked traditional Italian food. His Manifesto of Futurist Cooking was published in the Turin Gazzetta del Popolo on 28 December 1930. Arguing that "People think, dress[,] and act in accordance with what they drink and eat", Marinetti proposed wide-ranging changes to diet. He condemned pasta, blaming it for lassitude, pessimism, and lack of virility, — and promoted the eating of Italian-grown rice. In this, as in other ways, his proposed Futurist cooking was nationalistic, rejecting foreign foods and food names. It was also militaristic, seeking to stimulate men to be fighters...

On 17 November 1938, Italy passed The Racial Laws, discriminating against Italian Jews, much like the discrimination pronounced in the Nuremberg Laws. The antisemitic trend in Italy resulted in attacks against modern art, judged too foreign, too radical and anti-nationalist. In the 11 January 1939 issue of the Futurist journal, Artecrazia, Marinetti expressed his condemnation of such attacks on modern art, noting Futurism is both Italian and nationalist, not foreign, and stating that there were no Jews in Futurism. Furthermore, he claimed Jews were not active in the development of modern art. Regardless, the Italian state shut down Artecrazia.

Comment by DanielFilan on DanielFilan's Shortform Feed · 2024-02-10T01:51:48.959Z · LW · GW

Live in Berkeley? I think you should consider running for the city council. Why?

  • 4 seats are going to be open with no incumbents:
    • District 4: the area between Sacramento, Blake, Fulton, and University, plus the area between University, Cedar, MLK, and Fulton. Lots of rationalists live in this area. This will be a special election that's yet to be scheduled, but I imagine it will be held in April or May, with a filing deadline in late Feb / early Mar. (Or maybe it will be held at the same time as District 7, on April 16, filing deadline on EOD Feb 16)
    • District 5: north of Cedar, between Spruce and Sacramento/Tulare/Nelson. Election in November.
    • District 6: north of Hearst, between Oxford/Spruce and Wildcat Canyon Road. Election in November.
    • District 7: campus and the couple blocks immediately south of it. Borders are hard to describe, check here. Special election: filing deadline is EOD Feb 16, election is April 16.
  • Nobody is running in those races yet.
  • You probably have gripes with how the city is running: maybe you wish policing were different, or there were more permissive zoning, or better education.
  • You probably have a bunch of friends who feel similarly who maybe would want to vote for you or support your campaign.

Here is a candidate handbook for the District 7 election, I imagine running for the other districts is similar (but with different relevant dates).

Comment by DanielFilan on Most experts believe COVID-19 was probably not a lab leak · 2024-02-07T21:45:55.113Z · LW · GW

Thanks!

Comment by DanielFilan on Most experts believe COVID-19 was probably not a lab leak · 2024-02-05T18:53:02.226Z · LW · GW

Like, how much should William Lane Craig winning his debates update me on theism?

Partly I think that this debate format was way higher-quality than most formats I've seen, including in the domain of theism vs atheism. I also think that the answer is going to depend on whether or not your reasons for atheism are basically the same as Craig's opponents' - if they are, then I think it actually should somewhat (at least in a format where the winner is picked correctly), but if they aren't, then it probably shouldn't much at all.

Comment by DanielFilan on Most experts believe COVID-19 was probably not a lab leak · 2024-02-05T18:49:17.239Z · LW · GW

Snowballing contacts does introduce a risk of bias but that is mitigated by the disciplinary and geographic spread in the target sample.

Is there any chance you guys could share information about the trees of who recommended who, to help get a sense of how big this bias could be? Like, how large was the largest recommendation chain, what fraction of people were recommended vs initially contacted, etc?

Comment by DanielFilan on Most experts believe COVID-19 was probably not a lab leak · 2024-02-05T18:45:23.174Z · LW · GW

(Casual readers may not realize that John Halstead was one of the co-authors of the report on this survey)

Comment by DanielFilan on Most experts believe COVID-19 was probably not a lab leak · 2024-02-04T00:19:07.625Z · LW · GW

I think there's some controversy about which previous pandemics were caused by lab leaks (e.g. one flu season was speculated to have been), making the base rates less informative than you'd think.

Comment by DanielFilan on Most experts believe COVID-19 was probably not a lab leak · 2024-02-04T00:17:04.600Z · LW · GW
Comment by DanielFilan on Most experts believe COVID-19 was probably not a lab leak · 2024-02-03T21:22:49.495Z · LW · GW

Did you scroll down to see what people who were familiar with DEFUSE said?

Comment by DanielFilan on Most experts believe COVID-19 was probably not a lab leak · 2024-02-03T06:20:00.318Z · LW · GW

A bunch of people in the comments section are skeptical that we should care about the consensus of experts on this question. One thing I'm curious to get people's opinion on: late last year, Rootclaim did a series of debates with Peter Miller on whether COVID was a gain-of-function lab leak or a zoonotic spillover, you can watch the videos here. Two judges were mutually agreed upon, and for each judge that's convinced one way or the other, the loser (according to that judge) has to pay the winner $50,000. As a result the debates were pretty extensive - they went for a total of 17 hours, and the judges were pretty engaged, including asking written questions between rounds. The judges haven't released their decisions yet, but they will later this month.

For people who are inclined to disregard this survey: if the judges rule in favour of a zoonotic origin, would that count as relevant evidence in favour of zoonosis? Alternatively, if they rule in favour of a GoF lab origin, would that count as relevant evidence in favour of a lab leak?

Comment by DanielFilan on Most experts believe COVID-19 was probably not a lab leak · 2024-02-03T06:08:10.365Z · LW · GW

How is this a response to my point, that you can apparently be a virologist who has worked with Daszak and still publicly disagree with him?

Comment by DanielFilan on Most experts believe COVID-19 was probably not a lab leak · 2024-02-03T06:06:55.909Z · LW · GW

Do you think this chilling effect extends to other countries where Fauci has no presence?

Comment by DanielFilan on Most experts believe COVID-19 was probably not a lab leak · 2024-02-03T06:05:28.894Z · LW · GW

I think it has some bearing, partly because I'm pretty sure you're wrong about whether they would be fired or ostracized. For example, I think your theory is confused by how many people said that lab leak was more likely than zoonosis.

Comment by DanielFilan on Most experts believe COVID-19 was probably not a lab leak · 2024-02-02T23:25:32.296Z · LW · GW

Or, that it includes people who have been influenced by Daszak via spreading false information and so on, or are collaborators or are otherwise incentivized to lie for personal and career advancement. The field is small enough that personal relationships are essential to getting funded, hired, published and so on.

Note that Ralph Baric, a prominent scientist who has done gain of function research on SARS-like betacoronaviruses and was on the DEFUSE proposal lead by Daszak, signed an open letter with Jesse Bloom, Alina Chan, and others calling for further investigation of the lab leak hypothesis than had been done previously. So Daszak is apparently not so powerful that he's able to silence the whole field.

Comment by DanielFilan on Comment on the lab leak hypothesis · 2024-02-02T23:19:29.366Z · LW · GW

The closest relative of SARS-CoV-2 being very far away.

FWIW the first outbreak of SARS was in Foshan, Guangdong, about 1,000 miles away from the caves in Yunnan where the virus originated in bats. This is about the same distance as Wuhan is from the bat caves where we're aware of relatives to SARS-CoV-2 being.

Comment by DanielFilan on Most experts believe COVID-19 was probably not a lab leak · 2024-02-02T23:09:35.088Z · LW · GW

It's been a couple of years since 2021, so you might think that if there were persuasive reasons to believe in the lab leak theory, experts would know about them.

Comment by DanielFilan on Most experts believe COVID-19 was probably not a lab leak · 2024-02-02T23:08:44.574Z · LW · GW

I think it does matter: I don't think we have a strong sense of the base rate of lab leaks causing pandemics, so one sample would be informative.

Also, some of the experts would shift their views if the origin were known:

One reason to continue studying the origin of COVID-19 is because further knowledge about it could inform beliefs and policies for future pandemics. Therefore, the survey asked experts to imagine that the origin of COVID-19 has been found, and to consider how that might change their beliefs about the origin of the next pandemic. If COVID-19 is found to be from a zoonotic origin, a slight majority of experts reported that there would be no change in their beliefs, as seen in the “No Change” portion of the graph at right [Annex Tables F20 and F21]. However, if COVID-19 is found to be caused by a research-related accident, then a slight majority of experts would change their beliefs about the likelihood of the next pandemic also being from a research-related accident, with 42% increasing their estimate of the likelihood of the next pandemic being from a research-related accident. In most cases, if COVID-19 is found to have a certain type of origin (natural zoonosis or research-related accident), then that same type of origin is overall believed to become more likely for the next pandemic. The exception is that if COVID-19 is found to be from a research-related accident. Then, for the next pandemic, natural zoonosis becomes more likely for a larger number of experts as compared to it becoming less likely (22% vs. 15%). In all of these cases, the survey does not ask how much more or less likely the origin of the next pandemic would be.

Comment by DanielFilan on Most experts believe COVID-19 was probably not a lab leak · 2024-02-02T23:04:41.616Z · LW · GW

FWIW much of the sample is epidemiologists who don't think it was a lab leak. The survey was also anonymous, so people could dissent from the pro-zoonosis consensus without fear of retribution (as many did).

Comment by DanielFilan on [deleted post] 2024-02-02T00:46:39.791Z

Here is an example of the NYT prominently writing about how men weren't allowed to leave in March 2022: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/06/world/europe/ukraine-poland-families-separation.html

Comment by DanielFilan on [deleted post] 2024-02-02T00:44:06.430Z

Your 3 NYT quotes are not lies.

Comment by DanielFilan on Will quantum randomness affect the 2028 election? · 2024-01-26T04:51:54.003Z · LW · GW

Have you ever made voting decisions based on the QRNG?

Comment by DanielFilan on TurnTrout's shortform feed · 2024-01-22T00:20:30.865Z · LW · GW

The other is the friendly robot waving hello just underneath.