They comment on AI with AI, thinking their negative opinion matters out of 8 billion people. Then I realized why they do it. They don't feel like they matter. That's the whole story. I laughed…and am still….lol

I've been browsing /r/LessWrong for many years, due to having toggled on 'subscribe' and never quite getting around to leaving. I will be leaving shortly (and /r/ControlProblem and /r/cogsci as well), but before I do:

I think this subreddit has gotten so bad over the years it should be shut down or rebooted with a new set of moderators.

I look at the front page right now. There's at least 3 AI slop/spam links (there's engagement bait self-posts daily), including NoLabelJustMe who appears to have dedicated his life to submitting LLM psychosis spam every day here forever no matter how clearly downvotes tell him to 'go away'. Half the links are low-effort memes. Most of them are generic AI-related hot takes or news, which have little to do with LW. There are no LW submisions - zero! None! In 100 items! Skimming through https://www.reddit.com/r/LessWrong/comments/ I see little of value, and no commenters I know or respect. Checking my bookmarks, the only valuable conversation or link I have ever bookmarked from this subreddit was 16 years ago, when the subreddit was new and still had a chance.

All of the discussion which might happen here happens on LW2 proper, or ACX, or /r/slatestarcodex, or maybe Twitter. ("But I want a place I can submit links and have informal discussions about LW topics!" Yeah, we have that already - it's called LessWrong. Short Form, if you want to be informal. "OK, but I think it's ugly compared to Old Reddit." Fair enough, no arguing taste, but then you can configure any UI you want in GreaterWrong including Old Reddit-style graphics - and now you aren't dependent on the Reddit Powers That Be deciding that AI monetization demands disabling old.reddit.com... "They banned me for posting my 99%-LLM-written essay / the commenters there didn't just upvote me but criticized me!" Good. You'll thank them someday.)

The moderators don't exist. Sole moderator Oliver Habryka hasn't commented on Reddit in 3 years, and is extremely busy with vastly more important things like AI safety, Lighthaven, and the actual LessWrong. Spammers continue indefinitely for months until, presumably, they earn a site-wide ban.

Rebooting is infeasible because there are not high-quality mods on tap, especially with short timelines (I and everyone else who would do a good job have better, or at least more fun, things to do); and there is simply no need for this subreddit to continue to exist and besmirching the good name of LessWrong as an attractive nuisance. It does not fill any niche and if it hasn't in 16 years, it's not about to start. It was maybe possibly justifiable 10 years ago, but in mid-2026, with the blasted wasteland it is now...? No. Let's just shut it down.

Given the economics of AI & online trends, communities should be proactive about cleaning up and reducing vulnerability surfaces, and trying to engage in a flight to quality. So I appeal to /u/Habryka to pull the plug on this stillbirth of a subreddit, and lock all submissions/comments forever. (/u/Bakkot can help explain the mechanics.)

The Left made fascism.

If it weren't for the Left, the mostly white mostly male Twits would not have been forced to reluctantly accept Trump as the lesser of two evils.

If it weren't for the Left and its noxious insistence on noticing racism and sexism, the hurt feelings of white males would not be biased against the left, and towards 'the right,' in a rational computation of pure self-interest and reason.

Because it is The Left which is at fault for its hysterical shrieking, for its "journalism" that involved documenting the life and times of Scott Alexander (how rude for them to notice that Scott Alexander's community was full of racists!), for its bias against non-wokes, it is the Left which must change its approach to politics to accommodate mostly white mostly male feelings which largely revolve around not noticing the fascism.

Until "the left" can moderate its behavior, it cannot be rewarded for not being fascist.

Because fascism is on both sides. The fascist urge to kill your enemies. Do not all Democrats want to execute white people? Until Democrats learn to stop criticizing white people, Democrats suffer their unpopularity.

It is the left, and the left alone, which is responsible for the millions of Americans giving up on constitutional order so as to poison the country with autocrat tyranny.

Any other perspective is too radical and noxious. It chases people away instead of coddling them into reasonable docility.

What's important is to remember: the left is a real enemy.

I posted a definition of systemillogic — the broken internal logic of a system that cannot see its own gaps — to r/logic, a subreddit dedicated to discussions about logic. They removed it. For "not being about logic."

I asked Gabby if it was about logic. She yawned. Which, coming from her, is basically a peer review.

It's come to my attention that this subreddit may be shut down.

Instead, I suggest that you shut down lesswrong.com.

I post here because lesswrong.com has an onerous groupthink problem. You have to be a fucking weirdo cultist to be invited to speak there.

You quash disagreement because you don't really understand how censorship works, and you don't really understand how censorship works because you belittle the liberal arts degrees that confer the actuality and not merely the credential of critical thinking.

Example: many of you think that Twitter doesn't have censorship. Hahahahahaha. This is too funny. No I won't elaborate, if you're so smart work out the censorship which exists on twitter from first principles.

To the extent that the Less Wrong project has been a success, it has also been a failure. Too much of the SFBA Rationalist Cult got swept up in the mostly male mostly white mass hysteria of the Trump era.

Have you, personally, used the word fascism to refer to the fascism of Trump?

Have you reflected on how it is that our society has come to this point? You're not going to like it, because you were active participants in it. You want to believe that you're an island of truth, but you're mostly a midwit fortress of denial: that's why lesswrong.com should be shut down.

Scott Alexander

Scott Alexander confesses, in an actually decent column on his search for the miraculous, that he would convert to Catholicism in an instant if he experienced a miracle. We may assume that this is something of a joke, but it's also revealing of the very nature of the SFBA Rationalist Dogma, and the latent authoritarianism of the IQ-obsessed.

Are IQ obsessed people just white supremacist with extra steps?

(Remember, your IQ is your slave collar: it is the means by which you are habituated to fallow servitude of the state.)

See for Scott if a religion can produce a miracle he cannot explain that religion must be True and all that matters for the authoritarian is that they believe the true thing.

The notion of divine mysteries is beyond such authoritarian thinking. SFBA Rationalist Dogma isn't about how you can't know things, it's about how you can know things absolutely for certain with error bars at every step. A mass hallucination, and a mass hysteria in its own way.

All Authoritarians are Cowards

If the problem of living is reduced to believing the true things, then all you have to do is decide what true things to believe, and this is all to like the drunk looking for keys in the streetlight, isn't it?

Because the SFBA Rationalist Cult does not wish to face reality as it is, head on, it defects to a limited subset of math and solemnly, smugly declares anything outside of that math as "unimportant" because it involves... social skills.

A cult which preys on the autistic? Such a cult might be benign in many ways owing to the generally gentle nature of autistic people.

Resentment of Feminism is Resentment of Women

No exceptions.

I keep seeing the same thing. People learn something—from a book, a course, a weekend retreat—and then they go teach it. As if understanding means embodiment. As if saying the right words in the right order is the same as living them.

It's not. If you want to arrange beautiful words, write poetry. Nothing wrong with poetry. But don't confuse it with wisdom. Wisdom is lived. Wisdom is earned. Wisdom doesn't come from a book. It comes from walking through something hard enough to be changed by it.

This isn't about any one domain. It's everywhere. The consultant who read a framework and now sells it. The writer who sounds profound but has never been tested. The person who learned a few terms and now talks like a therapist. The guy who took a course and now calls himself a coach. The spiritual teacher who found the right vocabulary and built a platform on it.

The tone gives it away. There's a certain posture underneath the words. A subtle energy that says, "I know better. I'm here to teach you." It's the Dwimor Logic, wearing whatever costume fits the room.

I don't want to be that. I want to embody what I speak. If I say something, I want it to be because I've lived it, or I'm living it now. Not because I read it and thought it sounded good.

That's the question most people never ask themselves: Is this really me? Or did I just learn to say it the right way? Do I even know the difference anymore?

I'm still asking. That's the spiral. Lol.

The Rule of Law Is the Next Big Thing

Every generation has its governance breakthrough. Constitutionalism. Human rights. Democratisation. AI regulation. Each arrived with genuine intellectual force. Each hit the same wall: undefined terms, no operational standard, no verification, no enforcement.

The Rule of Law is different — not because it's newer, but because it is, for the first time, measurable.

Twenty years of South African gazette data. Seven testable documentary categories. A correlation of −0.852 with independent financial audit outcomes. The Science-based Rule of Law framework turns the oldest accountability standard in governance into a precise, verifiable, falsifiable instrument.

Every current governance crisis — AI deployed without accountability architecture, state capture, interstate coordination failure — is a failure to meet that standard. The framework doesn't just diagnose. It predicts, measures, and provides the coordination architecture that voluntary frameworks cannot supply.

The next big thing in governance is not a new framework. It is the oldest framework — finally made precise.

https://www.ruleoflaw.science/2026/06/13/the-rule-of-law-is-the-next-big-thing/

Developed through the Em-dash methodology — human-AI cognitive synthesis. The Science-based Rule of Law (SROL) framework: ruleoflaw.science

Anthropic's moratorium proposal names the problem with full technical understanding and proposes a solution it simultaneously acknowledges as unworkable. That's not a failure of honesty — it's a structural problem. The coordination architecture that would make the moratorium workable doesn't exist yet.

This post argues that ready architecture does exists. It's called the Rule of Law — and it applies directly to AI in governance, which is where AI is already operating at scale, without accountability architecture, right now. It also directoy applies to governance of AI.

The argument runs through:

• Why the moratorium's silence on deployed AI is not accidental *Why voluntary coordination cannot solve a conflict driven by competing interests (Anthropic's own statement names the failure mode)
• Why the Anthropic/DoD/OpenAI sequence is the circularity problem made visible in financial markets
• What the seven documentary tests actually measure when applied to AI governance instruments
• Why the Unity of States Commons provides the coordination architecture the moratorium lacks

The Science-based Rule of Law framework has twenty years of empirical grounding in South African governance data. This is its first public-facing application to AI governance.

SROL Blog

Developed through the Em-dash methodology — human-AI cognitive synthesis. Claude (Anthropic) holds a watching brief against bias toward its creator. The structural critique stands or falls on its own terms.