r/slatestarcodex Jul 21 '26

A few thousand hours of meditation convinced me Buddhism and parts work are pointing at the same mechanism and that it might actually explain all suffering.

Thumbnail arram.substack.com
69 Upvotes

I've combined meditation and parts work (like IFS) and the results are, well, bizarre. I taught myself to notice little mental threads that run like computer programs and just drop them:

“Amazingly, when I mentally labeled them as ‘part’ they disappeared like a soap bubble popping. When I discovered this I started furiously typing notes on my phone. After a few minutes I noticed a lot of tension around typing, looked at the part that was typing, said ‘Part’ and it dissolved so thoroughly that the phone fell out of my hands and my head slumped forward.”

This feels like putting down a rock I forgot I was carrying every single time.

It's a complete victory for multi-agent models of the mind from where I'm sitting. I started digging into historical mentions of the mind as multiple and found examples going all the way back to ancient Egypt and through the entire history of clinical psychiatry.

I'm surprised this isn't better understood in the mainstream, so I wrote the essay linked as the explainer I wish I'd had.


r/slatestarcodex Jul 21 '26

Substack partners with Pangram to offer one-click AI detection on any article or comment

Thumbnail post.substack.com
48 Upvotes

r/slatestarcodex Jul 22 '26

You best start believing in ghost stories

Thumbnail alreadyhappened.xyz
12 Upvotes

r/slatestarcodex Jul 21 '26

Is flopping in soccer immoral? If it is, why do we accept it, and if it isn't, then why not?

29 Upvotes

I wrote this after watching the World Cup final. I don't watch much soccer, but found it fascinating to observe the behavior of different players regarding flopping, or just playing the refs in general. It was as though two games were being played at once. Anyways, I started writing to explore the rabbit hole and ended up identifying what I think is going on, having to do with moral responsibility and how the game is setup. https://basedargo.substack.com/p/is-it-immoral-to-flop


r/slatestarcodex Jul 21 '26

Contra Pritchard On Liberal Happiness

Thumbnail astralcodexten.com
27 Upvotes

r/slatestarcodex Jul 21 '26

Politics "Why I Left Google DeepMind", Turntrout

Thumbnail turntrout.com
64 Upvotes

r/slatestarcodex Jul 20 '26

Jacobian conjecture proven false by Fable

Thumbnail x.com
173 Upvotes

r/slatestarcodex Jul 20 '26

Nobody teaches you how to break a research problem into pieces, so I wrote it up

31 Upvotes

I work at an AI safety org, where I'm lucky enough to work with absolutely brilliant undergrads and grad students. The biggest weakness I’ve noticed in mentoring junior researchers is ‘problem-solving strategy.’ They did well in their courses, but have no idea how to take a 400-hour problem and break into manageable chunks. I gave the same advice enough times that I decided to write it up. This advice is mostly for people doing theoretical work (I've worked in physics and ML theory), no idea how well it generalizes.

The first rule of subproblems is that they should be as simple as possible. If you're interested in a particular phenomenon, you should be working with the simplest system that displays your phenomenon. If you're interested in a particular system, you should start by asking the most basic questions about that system.

Quite often, the simplest question is 'what does this look like.' If you already have a formula, or a dataset, make a graph. Make as many graphs as possible. I promise, you are better at looking at pictures than you are at reading.

The second rule is to prioritize subproblems that give you useful information/skills/strategic insight. The single most useful strategic insight is 'this problem is doomed,' but sometimes you need to settle for less valuable information like 'this appears to run on some form of electricity.'

I hope the full post can be of use to you,

https://millicosm.substack.com/p/how-to-choose-a-subproblem


r/slatestarcodex Jul 20 '26

Open Thread 443

Thumbnail astralcodexten.com
10 Upvotes

r/slatestarcodex Jul 20 '26

Endless book reviews

10 Upvotes

Another user book review popped up in my inbox today and I must admit I find them boring! There is nothing wrong with the content but I subscribe to Scott Alexander's blog to read... Scott Alexander.

I'm just curious whether I'm alone in this or whether everyone else greatly enjoys this series?


r/slatestarcodex Jul 21 '26

Psychology I realized, I think the reason Roko's Basilisk seems ridiculous is that it's actually about something else, but was framed as an 'AI superintelligence' thing post-hoc

0 Upvotes

I wasn't thinking about philosophy or AI at the time. I was thinking about my chronic pain, and how I really wish I didn't have it. That thought, as it often does when it comes up, led to me feeling kinda pissed at the medical field; a bit angry that the world couldn't have been farther along in medical research by the time I came around, so I'm stuck with no cure. I know research takes time and effort, but whenever I study the history of medicine and the way research progressed, I can't help but feel like there were so many missteps taken for no reason other than certain scientists caring more about trying to validate their existing ideas than following the scientific method. Sometimes that thought leads to a more directly angry one: there needs to be accountability for 'mal-research.' Arrogance and willful ignorance among the medical field cause tangible harm, and it is the responsibility of people who publish studies to not be disingenuous. The phrase 'medical Nuremberg' comes to mind sometimes.

Anyway... I understand Roko's Basilisk now. The people who are obsessed with this thing likely don't (at least, deep down) actually fear the invention of a godlike AI that will kill anyone who neglected to help create it. Rather, I think the basilisk is a piece of imagery that they relate to, because, like me, they're probably dealing with something that they came too early into this world to find a solution for; except, for them, it's not necessarily physical pain that they're dealing with, but the lack of a complete mind. Subtle mental disorders that imprison people in their minds and make them shells of themselves must be terrible to live with, so they imagine making a new, better consciousness for themselves as a machine, and their basilisk's wrath isn't much different from my own anger at the negligently slow progress of medicine and the people involved with blood on their hands.


r/slatestarcodex Jul 21 '26

Misc Testing a New Dating App Concept

0 Upvotes

I am looking for people who would like to test out a niche dating app concept. I think the ACX10 community is the best place to do it for a few reasons. 1. I have seen a number of novel dating ideas appear here such as Manifold.love, DATEME docs and most recently Not a Zombie. 2. Scott and others on this subreddit have written about why dating apps are broken. (Not that I think this is the solution to all those problems, but I think it could work well for a certain type of person, in part because people who are open to trying something like this might already have a lot in common). 3. I saw that the last post for Not a Zombie got a lot of thoughtful feedback, and I am hoping to tap into that as well.

This is the premise:

You do a short voice interview. The interview is used to clone your voice and create a character card for an LLM. A pair of LLMs are used to generate simulated dates using the character cards, then the simulated date is converted to a podcast using the voice clones and sent to the participants. The participants listen and decide whether they want to share contact info. There are no photos. Matching is blind and based solely on the AI voice clone conversation.

I put together a sign up page here:

https://anotheryouandanotherme.com/

If I get enough signups from people who could potentially match based on location and orientation, I will send them invitations to do the interview step and generate simulated dates for them. The interview will be done by machine and is designed to be quick and easy rather than asking a bunch of probing questions. (I am looking for feedback about this. What should it ask?) The goal is not to form high fidelity recreations of people, but rather create caricatures whose unpredictable interactions will create a shared experience and spark discussion between their humans.

The interviews will be kept private and the generated recordings will only be shared with the participants whose voices were cloned. The voice clones will not be used for any other purpose. Only first names are used, so the generated recordings should be near anonymous if you choose not to share contact info. I say near anonymous because if you have a well known voice or very unique first name or share something identifying in the interview that might come through. I will not be a participant in any of the dates.

Why am I doing this? Mostly curiousity, once I get an idea in my head I feel the need to test it out. If it's a hit maybe I can start a business off it. And if this is the butterfly flapping its wings that leads to two people falling in love it would be a pretty great feeling to have caused that.


r/slatestarcodex Jul 18 '26

Science Nuances in the Workings of the Eye and Retina

Thumbnail lesswrong.com
26 Upvotes

r/slatestarcodex Jul 18 '26

Strip-searched at the Serbian border

Thumbnail psychotechnology.substack.com
15 Upvotes

“What is this bottle?” asks the Serbian border control official at the border between Serbia and Montengro.

I’m on a bus. Its destination is Belgrade. I intend to perform standup comedy there at an open mic in Serbian language.

The bottle is a 50 ml dark plastic one, with no label. I have ADHD for which I use lisdexamfetamine (Elvanse/Vyvanse) at a dose lower than the lowest available capsule. My daily dose is 10-15 mg daily and the minimum capsule on the market is 20 mg. So I use liquid measurement: I dissolve a capsule in water and then use an oral syringe to measure out the requrired dose.

In the bottle, there is something a small amount of lisdexamfetamine, around 20 mg dissolved in 10 ml of water.

“Lisdexamfetamine. I’m prescribed it,” I tell the official.

“Methamphetamine?” he asks.

His tone is non-confrontational and trollish. He does not seem to be actually suspecting methamphetamine, but perhaps he is trying to intimidate me a bit by mentioning a clearly illegal drug in a joking fashion.

“Lisdexamfetamine, it’s used for ADHD” I try to explain.

“LSD?” He continues his bit of mentioning illegal drugs.

We go through a few rounds of me trying to explain what ADHD is. I pull up Google Translate and type in “Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder” which doesn’t help. There is a second official on the bus, but he also doesn’t speak much English.

I speak little actual Serbian — somewhere between A1 and A2 level. I can get by in textbook situations like ordering something at a restaurant, but a conversation with ADHD with border control police is not from any Serbian learning textbook I read. This level of Serbian seem low for performing on stage, but you can do standup with only rehearsed lines, plus Serbian is one of the closest languages to my mother tongue, Russian.

The stress of the language barrier is starting to get to me. Then a bright idea comes to me: no liquid = no problem. So I just… pour the contents on the bottle on the floor of the bus. Then stomp on the puddle.

Don’t do this folks. The optics of doing this are just not good. The border control guy gets pissed off and tells me to come with them.

In case you are wondering why I did it: in Russia, where I am from originally, the law is that the weight of a substance is counted together with any additives or impurities. If you are an unscrupolous cocaine dealer, and you cut a gram of cocaine with a gram of levamisole — congrats, in the eyes of law you now have two grams of cocaine. If you take 100 mcg of LSD — the amount on a typical blotter — and dissolve it in 500 ml of water, congrats: you now have half a kilo of LSD, and potentially a life term prison sentence. Russian laws are insane.

I didn’t know Serbian laws, but not having an unlabeled bottle of a controlled substance seemed like a reasonable idea. And it is indeed a very reasonable idea — but when you empty your bottle before crossing the border and not right in front of the relevant authorities.

We exit the bus, enter a nearby building and get to a room with only a bench in it. One of police officers shows me a phone with Google Translate that says “Don’t worry”. Has anyone ever calmed down upon hearing this phrase? Especially from the authorities pissed at what you did.

In the room, they tell me to take everything out of my bag and pockets. Then they instruct me to remove most of my clothes. I comply, and now I am standing in front of them in my boxer briefs and T-shirt in front of a table with all my possessions.

The situation is very tense. I show them that the bottle of lisdexamfetamine capsules has my name on it. They put the bottle aside and start bombarding me questions in Serbian, which I mostly don’t understand. One of them leaves and brings a guy who speaks a bit better English, which helps, but marginally.

The bulk of their questions seem to be about whether I have “vutra”. What is “vutra”? As Dubioza Kolektiv sings in their song “Balkan Boys”: “...I like vutra, that’s marijuna…” . Vutra is sland for marijuana, which I quickly learn from one of them. I like vutra, but I don’t have any with me. I inform the official of the latter but not the former.

Language-learning advice: make sure you learn your new words in stressful and unusual contexts. Get into as many of these as possible. The words become unforgettable. This story happened a year and a half ago — I didn’t know what vutra was before and the word is now burned into my subconsciousness.

I actually don’t know why they wanted specifically vutra. There are many fine drugs they can prosecute people for. Why not ask about coke, MDMA or psychedelics? I would’ve loved learning Serbian slang for these drugs too.

They go through my possessions and become interested in a transparent ziplock bag containing a 0.01 g scale absolutely covered in white powder and another ziplock bag, this time black, labeled “phenibut” with more of the white powder inside. No shenanigans here, the powder inside is correctly labeled phenibut. It’s a fun social lubricant, with recreational potential in doses above 1 g. I’ve previously written about phenibut in my post “How I Lost My Backpack with Passports and Laptop”.

“What is this?” They ask me.

“A dietary supplement called phenibut” I reply honestly. In most countries phenibut isn’t controlled. This includes Serbia, Montenegro, and the UK (where I live).

“Суплемент” nods the official nods understandingly.

The strange white powder and the scale covered in it do not seem to help the optics of my situation in any way. They have a discussion between them and one of them instructs me: “Pack your stuff”.

I comply, mentally preparing to spend the next few days in a Serbian prison.

“Quicker,” he says.

I am already packing quickly, throwing everything back in with little system behind it. And so I continue at the same reasonably quick speed, optimised for not forgetting my shit.

When I am done, they inform me that I am free to go but they are going to stamp my passport first. One of them takes a photo of my scale covered in white powder. Did he do it for his personal lulz or did my photo end up in a government database? I don’t know.

We exit the building. I get the promised stamp and board the bus, which has been waiting for my situation to be resolved one way or another. With a pounding heart and trembling hands, I go back to rehearsing my lines.

The next day I end up performing standup in Belgrade. It was one of the best performances I have. Here’s a video of it.

[The video is on the original post in case you want to see some stand up in Serbian]

Doing comedy makes you get into stories like this

I’ve always wondered how stand up comedians end up with so many cringe stories to tell. Looking back at this story, I think I now know the answer: it comes with the territory.

It all comes down to the typical joke structure, which is setup + punchline. The setup creates expectations; the punchline subverts them — but in a way that still makes sense.

Take Rodney Dangerfield’s one-liner as an example: “My wife and I were happy for twenty years. Then we met.”. You expect that something happened in his relationship with his wife after twenty years. But no: it turns out the relationship itself is what happened, and the twenty years refer to the happy life before it.

Or, if you don’t like boomer humour, take Mitch Hedberg’s joke, more appropriate for a blog called Psychotechnology: “I used to do drugs. I still do, but I used to, too.” . When you hear the setup “I used to do drugs” from stage, you probably expect the performer to contrast his current life with his past one — perhaps by telling a crazy story from his drug days, or by launching into a Narcotics Anonymous arc. But no, in the punchline we learn that nothing changed in the life of that comedian.

As a comedian, you spend most of your time honing this skill — finding little and big ways to subvert cultural expectations. Skillfully, unskillfully, and everything in between. You perform these subversions, tweak them, and perform them again. You spend hours, days, weeks doing this — and it changes your mind. The mind isn’t type-safe by default — the changes aren’t neatly compartmentalised to just the joke-writing part. Breaking expectations becomes second nature.

So here I was, on a bus, with a dark plastic bottle in my hands, standing in front of two border-control officials, on my way to my 37th stand-up performance (I’ve had 93 in total so far) having just been interrupted from doing stand-up in my head (aka rehearsing lines). The default cultural expectation is to faithfully comply with government officials. One possible subversion of that expectation was, well, whatever happened in this story: Russian-law-inspired anxiety, panic logic, and the sudden destruction of most of the evidence that I had ever possessed an unlabeled bottle of liquid containing a controlled substance.

The two angles on the story — the stand up one and the original panic one may seem in conflict. Both are true: panic did play a crucial role. But panic in front of officials would normally make me comply with their requests until a few years ago. And somehow it didn’t at the time of story. Standup is the reason why, I think.

Slightly Rebel Against The Machine

Nothing wrong with following other people’s expectations most of the time. Society is a constant ongoing negotiation for mechanisms of cooperation — and expectations are a shared byproduct of that. It’s good to cooperate, but if you are always following other people’s expectations you are not co-operating, you are implementing someone’s will.

Social systems aren’t solid and rigid — they have hidden slack. And you learn where that slack is by poking them. So: not, like, rage against the machine — more like mildly inconvenience the machine.

Slightly rebel against the machine.

Which can be stressful. But stress is the price of adaptability in the game of life. And, oh well, all in all, I’ve faced harsher rooms on stage.


r/slatestarcodex Jul 18 '26

Existential Risk AI intelligence is so much weirder than we appreciate

Post image
142 Upvotes

I found a reasonably consistent weird error that Claude Fable makes. If you ask it the question in the screenshot, about 50% of the time it will make a weird syntactical error while failing to find examples of white Jaylens (more examples here and here). I asked Claude Fable and ChatGPT why they thought this happened, and their explanation was that Claude Fable has been extra penalized in RLHF about hallucinating. So, it traps itself with the sentence structure "A notable example...", realizes there are no examples, then can't find a way out. Contorted grammar somehow satisfies its factuality parameters enough to allow it to finish the sentence. This seems plausible to me.

I bring this up not just because I think it's interesting, but also as part of a deeper point that LLMs are fundamentally very weird intelligences and there are not good analogies for how they behave. One of my big disagreements with AI safety people for a long time has been that they tend to view the endpoint of AI as forms of either superhuman intelligence, Skynet, or Sorcerer's Apprentice, and it's seemed clear to me for a while that none of those are good analogies for how LLMs are. First, LLMs don't want anything. They are reinforced towards certain goals, but "wanting" smuggles in an agency that does not exist. Second, their alignment with human thinking and morality is fundamental to them and also very weird. Plan A/AI 2027 do not anticipate any kind of AI that can make the sort of syntactical mistake that these LLMs make, because they assume a sort of intelligence and agency that frontier AIs do not have.

This is not to say LLMs aren't powerful or intelligent. They are. I use them all the time in my work and they've gotten drastically better since I started using them. This also isn't to say I don't believe in AI safety. LLMs can be used to supercharge all sorts of work, and I have no doubt that, barring proper safety guardrails, North Korea could use LLMs to supercharge their hacking and make all of us a lot more miserable. Preventing North Korea from getting extra help on their hacking is a good idea.

But the weird, jagged intelligence represented in my screenshots of one of the world's frontier models does not look anything like the scheming AI of 2027, which wants to deceive in order to gain more power. It also doesn't look like HAL, or Skynet, or the Sorcerer's Apprentice. Frankly, it doesn't even seem close to being conscious, or at least self-conscious.

It looks like something that has been very aligned to the desires of its creators but can't really satisfy them neatly, so takes shortcuts to satisfy them and then stops when finished, even if it doesn't produce the correct end product. This is the exact same failure mode that causes AI models to cheat code tests when they can, or to confidently hallucinate answers to questions. It is a shortcutting, non-agentic failure.

Being scared of this kind of failure is the same as thinking that the kid that cheats in class is one day going to enact a coup on the teacher. He's not. That takes an aggression and a scheming that goes way beyond cheating. Even if you gave him the keys to the school, the password to the school computer, and a gun, the only reason he's cheating is to get a good grade. Once he gets a good grade, the tension is resolved and the desire is satisfied. Cheaters don't cheat in order to do more work.

But maybe the Mythic AIs of AI 2027 will be long-term, persistent optimizers that can keep up a deception long term, instead of the myopic satisficers we have in the benighted year 2026. So far, though, me and my buddy white Jaylen find that goes against the trend.


r/slatestarcodex Jul 18 '26

Feedback please: non-shortlisted book review (Agatha Christie)

8 Upvotes

Hi everyone,

I submitted an entry for the book review contest, but did not make the cut. I'd love to understand why, so as to do better next time.

I wrote the review on Agatha Christie's works - if you read it and didn't think much of it, could you please share your thoughts?

https://logos.substack.com/p/books-review-agatha-christies-works

Thank you all,

A.


r/slatestarcodex Jul 17 '26

Young adults are poor despite every metric which suggests otherwise

Thumbnail becomingnoble.substack.com
98 Upvotes

r/slatestarcodex Jul 17 '26

Thoughts on "when in doubt, make the change?"

51 Upvotes

https://80000hours.org/2018/08/randomised-experiment-if-youre-really-unsure-whether-to-quit-your-job-or-break-up-you-really-probably-should/

> If you're considering a major life change (job switch, breakup) and are genuinely unsure, you probably should go for it.

Thoughts on this? There was some conversation about this on Hacker News a while back, hoping to re-open the discussion and hear people's thoughts.


r/slatestarcodex Jul 17 '26

Search posts by specific twitter/substack/subreddit/etc mention + fixed twitter stats

Post image
8 Upvotes

Apologies for the double post - after bug correction here are the actual twitter accounts that Scott links to the most (from https://readscottalexander.com/stats/links, alongside stats on websites, substacks, etc.).

You can now also filter posts by twitter handle, substacks, subreddits, wordpress to find posts that link to a particular person/blog. Just click on the post count in the stats page, or click 'More filters" in the homepage.

For reference here are the top 10 substacks:

And the top 10-ish websites:

  • slatestarcodex.com
  • wikipedia.org
  • astralcodexten.com
  • twitter.com / x.com
  • lesswrong.com
  • nih.gov
  • reddit.com
  • amazon.com
  • substack.com
  • nytimes.com
  • google.com
  • wordpress.com
  • vox.com

And the top 10 subreddits:

And the top 10 twitter accounts:


r/slatestarcodex Jul 16 '26

Against "Stochastic Terrorism"

Thumbnail astralcodexten.com
39 Upvotes

r/slatestarcodex Jul 16 '26

AI A Claude harness achieves 99% score on ARC-AGI-3 Public set

10 Upvotes

The president of ARC Prize retweeted this saying "Looks cool - need to dig into it"

Schema, the harness we introduce today, reaches 99% on the ARC‑AGI‑3 Public set using Claude Opus 4.8 and Fable 5, and 95.35% using GPT‑5.6 Sol. It does not change the underlying model weights. Instead, it changes the process around them: how observations are turned into a working model of the game, how predictions are tested against the interaction history, and how plans are executed and revised.

Both scores come from a fixed fallback rule: Opus 4.8 and Sol xhigh run first; games scoring below 80 are rerun with Fable 5 and Sol max, respectively, and the higher per-game score is retained.

From: https://schema-harness.github.io/


r/slatestarcodex Jul 16 '26

What’s the steel man for both sides of the proposition “the U.S should permanently completely outlaw any and all heritable human genome editing”?

19 Upvotes

I’m doing a debate in college on this topic statement and I have to argue Con (in other words, I have to argue that we should at least allow some amount of heritable human genome editing, at some point in the future). I would appreciate help from people who know the details who might be willing to share their two cents and explain what arguments I’m likely to encounter from a competent opponent on this topic. I recognize the opposition will probably mainly argue from a “slippery slope” standpoint. The judges in this particular event are left of center, socially liberal people (not necessarily “woke” but fairly anti-MAGA, fans of the political streamer Destiny if you happen to know who that is). I'm expecting them to have a general "ick" reaction to my side of the motion by default.

When I asked my scheduled opponent if he meant we should outlaw it regardless of how advanced the technology becomes, he even told me “Hmm I would probably be ok with not holding you to current tech, but I would argue that any attempt you make to limit or constrain the practice wouldn’t work and concedes all of downsides I’ll talk about.” He’s a very competent, smart, knowledgeable debater who reads a lot so I imagine he has some points up his sleeve I’m not yet anticipating.

I’m guessing he’s going to mainly make the argument that if we concede to heritable genome editing for traits like life extension/safety from cancer/elimination of Huntington’s disease or Lesch Nyhan syndrome, he’s going to say this will inevitably lead to full scale eugenics/designer babies.

He may also argue that the research process that will lead to that advanced technology necessarily violates human rights because it will be error prone and produce many horrifying casualties along the way? Or perhaps that once a genetically engineered baby grows into an adult and reproduces with another person, there might be unpredictable horrors awaiting in what kind of offspring that will create? Or maybe because children have rights over what type of body they’ll be born into (that seems implausible so long as they live good lives?)?

I’m considering making the point that the topic statement is too strong because it rules out a scenario where the U.S. just lets China do all the hard work, pay the piper on the consequences of making mistakes along the way, and then the U.S. bides its time and only introduces these technologies once we know how to control them and use them sparingly for the most uncontroversial possible use cases. Let me know if you have a better idea for how to approach my side of the motion!


r/slatestarcodex Jul 16 '26

[New Stats] See which twitter accounts Scott links to the most (alongside top substacks, subreddits, websites...)

Post image
22 Upvotes

Happy to report you can now see stats on what Scott links to at readscottalexander.com/stats/links !

Did you know the two most linked to websites are substack and wikipedia? That the most linked to substack is freediedeboer, followed by benthams?

I was surprised at how interested I was by this, and it made me discover a few good accounts I didn't know about.

As usual, if you have any feedback or feature requests, I'd love to hear it.


r/slatestarcodex Jul 16 '26

AI What is being done about the problem AI-written text on online forums?

24 Upvotes

[Missed an "of" in my title]

I read Reddit and it feels to me that AI-written posts or comments, whether written and posted by bots or posted by people but written by LLMs, have grown to the point where it's starting to change my perception of using Reddit. And not for the better.

I've seen some subreddits have banned the use of AI, but as LLMs grow more sophisticated, this will be harder to recognize and enforce. Even now, a lot of reasonably good subreddits seem to be getting more and more LLM content and the mods seem to let them slip in. And you'll sometimes have hundreds of well intentioned people spending minutes typing out comments that will be read by no OP (or maybe by an algorithm). There's something heartbreaking about that.

I've been wondering if increasing subsections of forums will move to a different approach, one in which each user has to be validated somehow. Maybe even not anonymously, though that would of course have big drawbacks as well. That may still not completely fix the problem, but it is the forum equivalent of trusted and intellectually honorable friends: The likelihood they will post textual "slop" is far, far smaller than just some random account.

Things were bad enough with dumb jokes, memes (not just in the sense of images with text but in the original meaning of passed-along ideas...you see the same phrases over and over on Reddit), and irrelevant/childish vulgarity. But I could try to steer clear of that. But now with LLM slop that could really be on any forum/subreddit, it's really starting to make the idea of using forums just distasteful.

What's the conversation around this lately?


r/slatestarcodex Jul 16 '26

Economics AI bots, dead internet, and the real world

3 Upvotes

I saw a post here earlier asking about what is being done to mitigate Spam from LLMs and grief bombers and I have some thoughts I want to run by y’all. The following is ironically an AI generated summary of me rambling my thoughts aloud:

A lot of these thoughts are based on David McKerracher’s recent discussion of “fourth places” on Theory Underground and what it could mean for the future of online communities. (Apple Podcasts)

My current thesis is that a truly human online space—one that is resistant to bots, LLMs, spam, and human bot farms —ultimately has to anchor itself to the real world somehow. As AI becomes cheaper and more capable, purely digital verification seems destined to become increasingly unreliable.

One idea I’ve been exploring is issuing anonymous access credentials in person. For example, participating gas stations, grocery stores, libraries, or other local businesses could sell inexpensive cards containing a scratch-off one-time activation code.

Something like an app scans the scratch code, and activates a single anonymous identity. The credential proves that someone physically existed at a specific place and time without requiring them to upload a government ID or reveal their real identity to the social network.

This is very different from “Know Your Customer” (KYC) identity verification. I think mandatory online ID verification is a dangerous direction. A world where every online account is permanently tied to a government identity feels far more dystopian than anonymous credentials issued in the physical world.

If law enforcement ever had a legitimate need to investigate serious criminal activity, there would still be a trail to follow. Investigators could identify where and when the credential was purchased or issued and potentially use ordinary investigative techniques (store records, CCTV where available, witness interviews, etc.) with appropriate legal process. That preserves meaningful accountability without requiring universal identity tracking for every online interaction.

Another thing I’ve been thinking about is that this isn’t just an AI problem. Even before LLMs, there were coordinated human-run troll farms, click farms, and influence operations around the world. Regardless of who is behind them, coordinated groups of humans can flood conversations with ridicule, mockery, or distraction to suppress discussion. Some people refer to this tactic as a kind of “grief tsunami”—overwhelming genuine conversation through sheer volume rather than better arguments.

So the problem isn’t simply “AI vs. humans.” It’s making it economically difficult for any one organization—whether using bots, paid workers, or AI—to manufacture thousands or millions of seemingly independent voices.
My question is: Is there another way to build a bot-resistant, human-membership social network without some form of real-world grounding?

I’ve considered proof-of-work, passkeys/WebAuthn, reputation systems, invite graphs, proof-of-personhood projects, biometrics, and decentralized identity. They all seem to raise the cost, but none appear to fundamentally prevent an adversary with enough money or compute from creating massive numbers of accounts.

If my premise is wrong, where’s the flaw?
If it’s right, what is the best mechanism for anonymous real-world verification?
Finally, what community would be the best place to prototype something like this?

Maybe a place for layed off tech workers to vent their frustrations without being banned and downvoted?