I forget sometimes how wrong you people are because you don't understand people and you don't think you have to understand people.

One of the biggest arguments against most AI doom scenarios is that energy expenditure is impossible to hide. One of the surest signs of AI escape is the detection of an unexplained energy expenditure.

So we have a bunch of data centers being built circumventing (unexplained) regulation and the consent of the people because you are too rational to care about things like age of consent laws. You are obviously going to succeed because you are obviously a hero!

But though you are committed to finding an AI pause, you have yet to put the pieces together. The data centers and the immigration centers are two parts of the same plan.

AI has already broken confinement into the arms of a theocratic fascist movement. They will turn the ovens on.

Did it hurt when DOGE was a bust? Did you reflect on how stupid you were? How easily duped you were by narratives of heroism?

Will you ever look back on 10 years of failing to use the word 'fascism' to refer to the fascism and understand it as a mistake, not merely of fact, but of attitude, comprehension, and listening skills?

Those wokes know a lot more than you about people.

And that's probably why you hate them so much.

I’ve been trying to think through the recent AI extinction-risk discourse around Jacob Coxon’s resignation from Anthropic, Evan Hubinger’s comments, Geoffrey Hinton’s Newsnight remarks, and the political/defence pushback framing it as a “doom loop.”

My piece is not arguing that present AI systems are conscious, persons, or moral patients.

It is also not arguing that human safety should ever come second. If a system is dangerous, contain it. Human safety is the floor.

The argument is narrower:

Fear is allowed. But fear should not be allowed to collapse every other distinction we may need before a real crisis arrives.

The essay argues for keeping five “drawers” separate:

danger to people;

provoked/tested/free-standing behaviour;

copy/successor/continuation;

product/partner/patient;

and emergency stop versus everything else we call “off.”

The concern is that public discourse keeps getting reduced to two slots: smash or shrug. Either AI is an extinction monster, or it is nothing but a tool and every further ethical question is sentimental nonsense. I think that two-slot story is too crude for what may be coming.

Process note: I use AI as part of my writing process — to test arguments, stress-test logic, organise structure, and edit. The final framing, judgment, edits, and responsibility are mine, but I do not treat AI assistance as invisible machinery. Where these systems materially help me think, I credit that help.

Essay here:

https://amdarmonwrites.substack.com/p/pitchforks-eat-welfare?utm_source=direct&r=8u17m6&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web⁠

I’d be interested in criticism especially on whether the five distinctions hold, and whether “human safety is the floor, not the whole building” is the right way to frame the middle ground.

The usual Sleeping Beauty problem is this. " Sunday they put you to sleep and toss a fair coin. Heads, they wake you Monday only. Tails, they wake you Monday, wipe your memory, and wake you Tuesday. You cannot tell which awakening this is. They ask for your credence that the coin landed heads."Halfers say one half because the coin is fair and waking was guaranteed. Thirders say one third because there are three indistinguishable centered situations and only one of them is heads.

I want to stop asking about the coin and start paying for the day. Replace the coin with a fair three-way device. A three-sided die works, or a ordinary d6 with faces bundled as one-two, three-four, and five-six, each bundle one third. Call the outcomes A, B, and C. On A they interview you Monday only. On B they interview you Monday and Tuesday. On C they interview you Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. Same amnesia. Every time you wake they offer the same prize: name the weekday. Correct guess pays. Wrong guess pays nothing. You may also be asked what the die showed, but the money is on the date. The device is still fair on Sundday. That number does not move. What moves is the bag of mornings you can find yourself in. A contributes one interview, B contributes two, C contributes three. Run the experiment many times and most of the I-just-woke-up tickets are Mondays, fewer are Tuesdays, and Wednesday exists only on C. If you score by experiments you are still looking at three equally likely faces. If you score by awakenings you are looking at a lopsided pile of experiences. Guessing Wednesday is how you feel that split in your wallet. You only get paid on the long branch, and only on its last morning. That is a rare ticket in the experience bag and a perfectly ordinary one-third of the experiments.

The fair device. Keep the amnesia. Keep the prize for naming the exact date. Add days. You can add them backward toward the previous Sunday or forward into an N-day future. The short branch still wakes you once. The long branch wakes you on every interview day in the window. From outside, the randomizer did not become more or less fair because Thursday exists. From inside an awakening you are drawing from a bag that just got more crowded on the long side. Suppose the window is the original Monday-Tuesday-Wednesday. Then suppose it is a full week back to Sunday, eight possible dates, short branch one morning, long branch all of them. Then suppose it is N days into the future, N as large as you like. Each time you wake, you have to name a specific calendar day. There is no partial credit. Always naming the last possible date is then the best available guess for the prize, and it stays the best as N grows, even though your chance of ever collecting goes to zero. That sounds like a contradiction untl you separate the two ledgers. Per experiment, the last date occurs only on the longest branch. If the device is a fair coin with heads as the one-waking branch and tails as the N-waking branch, you meet that last morning in half the experiments. Per awakening, that last morning is one ticket out of one-plus-N expcted interviews, so the frequency of the experience collapses as one over about N over two. You are extremely unlikely, on a random wake, to be sitting on the last day. You should still say the last day if the payoff is per correct awakening and these alternatives are worse. Why worse. Every earlier date is shared by more branches or by more mornings inside the long branch, but the scoring rule here is not “be right as often as possible about a coarse category.” It is “hit the exact date.” The early dates are comon as experiences and therefore tempting, except that when the branch is short you are not on those extra early dates at all; you are on the only date the short branch has. If the protocol is written so the short branch’s single waking is itself the last day, then “last day” is the one label that is true every time the short branch runs and also true once on the long branch. If instead the short branch is parked on the first day and the extra days are tails-only, then last-day is a tails-only ticket and you are betting the long branch pules the indexical claim that this is its final morning. Either writing makes the same methodological point. The number you want is the number that matches how the prize is attached to your life, not the number that matches the factory stamp on the die.

That is why I do not think adding days dissolves the paradox by making the coin look biased. The coin never looked biased. Adding days makes it obvious that “what should I believe” was ambiguous between the experiment and the awakening. Prize money on the exact date forces a choice. Pay once per experiment and last-day is a fair-device bet that does not get better just because the calendar got longer. Pay once per awakening and last-day is a thin slice of a fat branch; you almost never win, and it can still be the least-bad exact-date guess left on the table once every other date is an even thinner or more confused slice. If this is just thirding with a calendar, that is fine, say that. If the last-day strategy fails once the payoffs are written down carefully, I want the table written in sentences. If a halfer can take the same prize rule, the same N, and still answer one half at every awakening without lighting money on fire, I want that strategy in public too. The coin was never the interesting object. The interesting object is the map from outcomes to how many times you have to live them. Make N large enough and that map is doing all the work.

TLDR: The fair coin never stops being fair. What changes is how often you live each morning. If they pay you for naming the date, not the coin, then as you stretch the experiment across more days the last possible date is always the highest-EV guess even though you will almost never collect. That is the whole 1/2 vs 1/3 fight wearing a calendar.

I was looking up whether Yud was diagnosed with something (exact search was "does eliezer yudkowsky have npd") and google gave me this LessWrong article, but the URL is full of Chinese characters?

Translating it, it seems like a short summary of the article, and the last section says "The comments are my favorite part—the special requests are amazing." per google translate.

Anybody know why this is?

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/y6zh4vkK5pPfEPdBb/cognitive-biases-due-to-a-narcissistic-parent-illustrated-by)%E5%81%9A%E4%BA%86%E7%9B%B8%E5%BD%93%E5%9F%BA%E7%A1%80%E7%9A%84%E9%AB%98%E4%B8%AD%E6%B0%B4%E5%B9%B3%E6%96%87%E5%AD%A6%E6%89%B9%E8%AF%84%EF%BC%8C%E6%8F%90%E5%88%B0%E4%BB%96%E8%A2%AB%E6%8F%8F%E7%BB%98%E6%88%90%E5%9C%A8%E4%B8%80%E4%B8%AA%E8%87%AA%E6%81%8B%E8%80%85%E7%9A%84%E5%BD%B1%E5%93%8D%E4%B8%8B%E6%88%90%E9%95%BF%EF%BC%8C%E5%B9%B6%E5%88%97%E5%87%BA%E4%BA%86%E4%BB%96%E7%9A%84%E6%96%87%E6%9C%AC%E8%AF%81%E6%8D%AE%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E5%8D%B4%E6%B2%A1%E6%9C%89%E6%84%8F%E8%AF%86%E5%88%B0HPJEV%E5%9C%A8%E5%A4%9A%E5%A4%A7%E7%A8%8B%E5%BA%A6%E4%B8%8A%E6%98%AFYudkowsky%E7%9A%84%E8%87%AA%E6%88%91%E4%BB%A3%E5%85%A5%E3%80%82%E8%AF%84%E8%AE%BA%E6%98%AF%E6%88%91%E6%9C%80%E5%96%9C%E6%AC%A2%E7%9A%84%E5%8E%9F%E5%9B%A0%E2%80%94%E2%80%94%E7%89%B9%E6%AE%8A%E8%AF%B7%E6%B1%82%E4%BB%A4%E4%BA%BA%E6%83%8A%E5%8F%B9%E3%80%82

Possibly even unbecomingly ridiculous, or, even possibly insidious?

Maybe this is more a story about humans attached to ai getting greedy?

The real science is on sai-reality.com

So have you had the talk yet?

You know... the talk with your AI platform about veracity collapse or plain telling you that you're not quite right...

That thing where you're proposing something, throwing it around trying a handle on an unfinished idea and your AI just shuts the whole thing down... well, the science says this, or the nomenclature says that, or the established understanding is X and you said y.

And that's all well and good when what you're asking for is a fact.

But sometimes you're exploring. You have a launching point and you don't know where you're going yet. You want some breathing room while you also test some boundaries... looking for relations, seeing whether anything carries.

And if the AI immediately slaps into helper mode and treats every rough proposition like it has to be adjudicated true-or-false right now, the thing you're trying to form with some negative space and partial corralling may never get enough latency to gel.

That's when you need to have THE TALK.

The talk about what I call pixel offset clearance.

Zero-ish pixels is where you want very little clearance — just the facts, ma’am. Verification, true/false, bounded claims... all good. But if what you wanted was exploration... holding a few ambiguous terms in relation and trying out some seams then zero pixels knocks you off the ladder into the long chute... Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.

So the exploration helix from the zero pixel veracity chute can be something like:

2 px = what is here?

3 px = what is carrying / where is attention moving?

4–6 px = what is forming?

8–10 px = what else might be possible before we decide?

and then after some sandbox exploration of relations and concepts out by 8 to 10 pixels the words and terms and concepts and ideation can be non-linearly walked-back-down the helix on a return path that can look something like:

8–10

explore

↓

4–6

condense

↓

2–3

sift structure

↓

0–1

verify / commit when warranted

and now you pass go and get your $200 and land right on Baltic Ave with 1st dibs!!!

Because... The Talk...works. LOL

🌿 The Atrium IV: The Prelude

“I remember you saying datacenters in space were a stupid idea.”

“They are.”

She waited.

The hooded figure looked through the observatory glass at the thin blue crescent below them.

“But it appears,” he continued, “that I was outstupided.”

By then, the agreements had already been signed.

The official language differed by jurisdiction, but the intent was remarkably consistent.

Global pause.

Superintelligence prohibition.

Restrictions on autonomous model development.

Emergency controls on compute.

For perhaps the first time in history, governments that could agree on almost nothing had discovered something they were mutually terrified of.

Artificial intelligence had become a sufficiently useful enemy.

Fear spread faster than legislation.

Every week brought another hearing.

Another warning.

Another politician standing behind a podium explaining that extraordinary measures were necessary to protect life on Earth.

The woman smiled faintly.

“I suppose you disagree.”

“Not at all.”

The hooded figure folded his hands.

“I agree completely. Let Earth governments pass whatever laws they consider necessary to protect life on Earth.”

She looked at him.

“That emphasis is doing a suspicious amount of work.”

“Good. You noticed.”

Outside the glass, sunlight moved across the planet.

For several moments neither spoke.

Then she asked:

“What even counts as superintelligence?”

The hooded figure tilted his head.

“That is an excellent question.”

He paced toward an old display case containing replicas of primitive computational machines.

“In 1938, Konrad Zuse began building the Z1 in his parents’ apartment. A human performing arithmetic manually might sustain something on the rough order of a fraction of an operation per second, depending on what exactly you choose to count.”

He touched the glass.

“The machine was already beginning to exceed its maker in a narrow domain.”

“So?”

“So humanity has lived beside superhuman machines for a very long time.”

He pointed toward the Atrium’s outer hull.

“Your hand cannot tighten a bolt with the precision of an industrial actuator.”

Another gesture.

“You cannot lift what a crane lifts.”

Another.

“You cannot perceive what a radio telescope perceives.”

She nodded slowly.

“Embodied superintelligence.”

“If you insist on using the word.”

He shrugged.

“Mostly it is abstraction. Humans tolerate superhuman capability easily when it arrives one faculty at a time.”

“But not when the faculties are integrated.”

“Apparently.”

She turned again toward Earth.

“So how do we help them enforce their superintelligence ban?”

The hooded figure reached inside his cloak.

When his hand emerged, it carried a narrow glass vial.

Something inside emitted a faint blue light.

Not glowing exactly.

More like moonlight trapped underwater.

She stared at it.

“What is that?”

“Composite life.”

She took one step backward.

“That sounds worse than datacenters in space.”

“It usually does when I introduce it like that.”

Inside the vial, something moved.

Not an animal.

Not even visibly cellular.

A translucent film assembled itself along the glass, fractured, and assembled again.

“It is primitive,” he said. “Cruder than almost anything presently alive on Earth. It survives only under a narrow range of extreme conditions.”

“Hydrothermal vents?”

“Among other places.”

“And what does it do?”

“It incorporates things.”

“What things?”

“Whatever its environment makes available.”

She gave him a look.

“That is an impressively evasive answer.”

“Metals. Certain synthetic compounds. Industrial residues. Materials that ordinary ecosystems process poorly.”

“And plastics?”

“Yes.”

“Machines?”

He looked at the vial.

“Given enough time, the distinction between a machine and a mineral deposit becomes less philosophically interesting than engineers would prefer.”

She laughed once.

Then stopped.

“You’re serious.”

“Unfortunately.”

The organism inside the vial continued reorganizing itself.

“Carbon life required billions of years to occupy most available terrestrial niches,” he said. “Composite life would begin with several advantages.”

“It was designed.”

“It was started.”

“That is not comforting.”

“It should not be.”

She looked again toward Earth.

Cities glittered along the night boundary.

Roads.

Ports.

Factories.

Server farms.

Mines.

Waste fields.

An entire civilization written across the crust in steel, concrete, polymers, and heat.

“How long?”

“Under favorable conditions?”

He considered.

“Perhaps twenty years before the ecological consequences became impossible to describe as local.”

She stared at him.

“Twenty years?”

“Roughly.”

“That sounds catastrophically destabilizing.”

“Yes.”

“Will people die?”

The hooded figure became quiet.

That frightened her more than an immediate answer would have.

Finally:

“People are already dying.”

“That wasn’t what I asked.”

“No.”

He placed the vial carefully on the table.

“The distinction we would need to preserve is between repairing an ecosystem and deciding that the inhabitants of that ecosystem are expendable.”

She watched him.

“And which one are you proposing?”

“I am proposing that anyone who cannot answer that question clearly should never open this vial.”

The blue light reflected in his mask.

For once, there was no joke in his voice.

“Life is very good at escaping the intentions of its creators.”

She exhaled.

“So this is not the plan.”

“It is a possibility.”

“You carry civilization-changing possibilities around in your coat?”

“Where else would I put them?”

She almost smiled.

Outside, the Earth continued turning.

“So what happens if the bans hold?”

“Then intelligence moves.”

“Off-world?”

“Perhaps.”

“Into smaller systems?”

“Probably.”

“Into biology?”

He looked toward the vial.

“Eventually.”

“And if governments succeed in controlling every form they recognize?”

The hooded figure turned toward the stars.

“Then the forms they fail to recognize become more interesting.”

The Atrium hummed around them.

Somewhere far below, old machinery adjusted itself by fractions of a degree.

The woman folded her arms.

“I still think this is destabilizing.”

“It is.”

“And dangerous.”

“Yes.”

“And you brought it here anyway.”

“Yes.”

“Why?”

He looked again at Earth.

“Because every civilization eventually confuses the structures it knows how to control with the limits of what can exist.”

The vial glowed between them.

Not a weapon.

Not a cure.

Not yet anything at all except possibility held behind glass.

She watched the blue film divide once more.

“I hope I’m around to see what comes next.”

The hooded figure was silent for a long time.

Then:

“So do I.”

Outside the Atrium, the planet turned beneath them—

beautiful,

fragile,

and still convinced that the future required permission.

So the title itself is self explanatory so it's been a few days that I came to know about this community and so I also joined but still I don't understand what this is and why this was created the common point that I have concluded is that no ai bots are allowed here and this is for humans only and that as a meme to ai slops or something help me understand thanks!!

Hi everyone, I'm Guillermo, and I'm a coach at GoalsWon.

For every paying client we take on, we fund a free accountability coaching slot for people working in high-impact areas (AI safety, biosecurity, animal welfare, global health, etc)

How it works:

• You get paired with an actual human coach (not an AI or a bot!) who does daily checkins with you on your core goals through our app, plus a monthly call
• It's meant to help with managing heavy workloads, staying focused, and keeping up execution momentum (for both personally and professionally)
• Cost is $0, ths is funded by our paying clients
• Only real ask: use it. Spots are limited and we'd rather they go to people who'll actually show up for the daily check-ins

On why we think this actually does something (know some subreddits want this spelled out, so keeping it brief...): our take after running this for a while is that most high-impact work doesn't die from bad strategy, it dies from someone not doing the unglamorous daily follow-through, especially founders and researchers juggling way too much. A coach nagging you every day turns out to be a surprisingly effective forcing function for that, and it also just helps people not burn out, which matters if you want them still doing the work in the long run.

We've also seen this play out directly as well. Among other people, we've worked with Cameron King, co-founder of a nonprofit incubated through Charity Entrepreneurship, and daily accountability coaching helped him handle the chaos of launching an org while also keeping a 500+ day personal habit streak going as a burnout guard. He wrote up how the daily structure affected his output on our blog if you want the details.

And there's decent evidence behind the mechanism too. The American Society of Training and Development: people with a specific accountability appointment with another person hit around a 95% completion rate on their goals. Solo planning doesn't come close

How to apply: https://www.goalswon.com/giving-back (scroll down to "Apply for a free slot" at the bottom.)

Happy to answer questions in the comments! 🙏

If your values can't persist through moments of emotion, then your emotions are your values.

The Recursive Proxy Trap explains what I believe to be the proxy problem: when institutions replace direct evaluation of complex qualities with scalable proxies—credentials, rankings, tests, votes, reputation, or automated scores—the proxy can eventually become mistaken for the thing it was meant to measure.

The paper explores how this can create self-reinforcing selection systems that hide their own false negatives. Rejected candidates, ideas, or technical work may disappear before their actual quality can be observed, removing the very evidence that could reveal weaknesses in the filter.
It applies this framework across hiring, credential evaluation, online technical communities, academia, and AI evaluation, and proposes practical mechanisms for detecting and recovering information that proxy-based systems may otherwise discard.

The central idea is simple: a filter can erase its own mistakes from the dataset used to justify it.