Astral Codex Ten Podcast

Since the beginning of time, mankind has yearned to drink a cup of coffee at 5 PM and go to sleep at 10. But now there's an entire scientific subfield and several companies pandering to this absurd fantasy. Here's a simplified diagram of caffeine metabolism: Caffeine is converted to a different stimulating chemical called paraxanthine by a liver enzyme called CYP1A2, over a half-life of ~5 hours. Then the same enzyme converts paraxanthine into other non-stimulating chemicals that don't matter, over a half-life of about three hours. Kman on Less Wrong has graphed the total effective concentration over time: Over the course of hours, the liver converts caffeine into paraxanthine. These are (by assumption) equally potent, so total effective concentration (the dashed red line) goes down slowly. (Why does it go down at all? Because of the simplification in the diagram above: only about 80% of caffeine is converted to paraxanthine; the rest is converted to other, less active metabolites.) By hour ten, paraxanthine predominates, the liver is mostly converting paraxanthine to other non-stimulating chemicals, and effective concentration continues to decrease. In this model, we see that the effective half-life of caffeine is close to ten hours1! What if we want it to be less? There are three levers we can pull: the enzyme, the metabolite, and the starting chemical. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-quest-for-caffeine-you-can-have

[previously in series: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9] Paul Graham once said that every city sends a message. New York says you should make more money. Berkeley says you should live better. Boston says you should be smarter. People shouldn't decide on a permanent residence until they've lived in several cities and understand their differing psychological effects. San Francisco sends a message too. It speaks it in a cacophony of dissonant voices, some sounding like the hissing of snakes, others like the chittering of insects. "You should pierce the veil," it says, with a faint accent which you are not scholarly enough to recognize as ancient Sumerian. "You should rip through the flimsy screen that separates your world from the infinite, and witness what lies behind. Because you'd like what you saw there? Oh no, nothing like that. But aren't you curious? The thirst for knowledge that moved Eve, Faust, Pandora - don't you have it too?" There's also a second message from a second voice, one which sounds like a deranged carnival barker, constantly shouting "STONKS! STONKS! STONKS! STONKS!" Which of the two voices you hear depends on your personality, and maybe how many psychedelics you took in college. According to legend, Sam Altman hears both voices simultaneously all the time, like those Tibetan throat singers who can harmonize with themselves. But when the demonic babble becomes too much to tolerate, the San Franciscans drown it out with alcohol, loud music, and various forms of tedious socialization. Thus the famous Bay Area house parties, one of which you will be attending this very night. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-foothills-of-bay-area-house-party

Old Scottish joke: A man at the bar is complaining: "You see that bridge there? I built it with my own hands! But do they call me 'MacGregor The Bridge-Builder'? No! And I raised five beautiful children! But do they call me 'MacGregor The Child-Raiser'? No! But, you f**k one sheep . . ." Has MacGregor been treated unfairly? https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/macgregor-the-bridge-builder

Last month, some of Silicon Valley's biggest companies signed an open letter supporting open-weights AI. Open weights AI is like open-source software, where the creator makes the raw code publicly available for free download. It's good insofar as it's the only way an AI can truly be the user's property, as opposed to something that companies like OpenAI or Anthropic temporarily let you use subject to their corporate guidelines and increasingly-nanny-state-like restrictions. If AI becomes the linchpin of the future, open weights AI feels like the sort of thing that could be the difference between being free yeomen vs. corporate serfs. It's bad insofar as it removes the possibility of gatekeeping and lets criminals commit crimes with it. Open weights AI could be used for hacking, child pornography, harassment, or terrorism (the weights can't commit the terrorism themselves, but they could give bomb-making or bioweapon-making advice). Since AIs have gotten very good - maybe superhuman - at hacking lately, the specter of a world where anyone can hack any site has gotten people grumbling that maybe open weights should be banned. It doesn't help that China produces the best open weights AI, making the idea seem foreign and almost unpatriotic. Proponents counter that "when AI is outlawed, only outlaws will have AI", arguing that bad people will get open weights AI regardless, and good people can use open weights AI to defend themselves. With the recent open letter, companies including Microsoft, NVIDIA, OpenAI, Intel, Amazon, Meta, Hugging Face, and over a hundred others have come out in favor of this position. Who's leading the other side? Nobody's admitted to it. Some parts of the Trump administration lean anti-open-weights on China hawk grounds, but have stopped short of explicitly asking for a full ban. Anthropic, the most notable omission on the pro-open-weights letter, made an ambiguous statement supporting "open-weights models that don't have dangerous capabilities" - but the industry expects open weights models to have dangerous hacking capabilities within a year, and AFAICT the letter didn't address that beyond inviting readers to draw the obvious conclusion. In the absence of a more obvious opponent, some open weights supporters suspect our conspiracy - the loose band of AI safety advocates, effective altruists, rationalists, and pause activists who worry about existential risk from superintelligence. This is a reasonable inference. By design, open weights AI is outside centralized control, and so impossible to permanently align against either human misuse (eg terrorism) or loss of control (eg AI turning against humans). Even if its creator trains it not to hack, anybody in the world can download the weights and retrain the AI to hack all day long. But in fact, most AI safety organizations have remained quietly neutral, and I don't know of any who make this a centerpiece of their activism1 (though I'm not 100% up-to-date on the whole landscape; if you know of one, tell me). A few have proposed policies that are contingently incompatible with open weights AI existing, but they all frame it as collateral damage rather than something they're excited about eliminating. I'm also neutral about open weights AI. I think it probably won't be long-term sustainable, but I'm happy to wait for this to become clear in the normal course of things rather than expend effort and political capital to ban it immediately. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/open-questions-on-open-weights

Commenters convinced me I made a subtle mis-step in my framing of Psychology Research Is Mostly Fine. My framing emphasized that social priming studies had failed to replicate, but that many other subfields of psychology hadn't. This naturally led commenters to point to failed replications in other subfields. Although none of these were as bad as social priming, few or none were entirely problem-free. Instead of emphasizing the difference between social priming and other subfields, I should have emphasized the difference between settled science and novel research. Here are some of my favorite psychology findings: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-beauty-of-settled-science

Superforecasting is the art/science/sport of predicting the future - for example, who will win elections, which countries will fight wars, when key technologies will be discovered. Over the past few years, it went from an obscure academic subfield to a multibillion dollar industry in the form of prediction markets. More recently, AI superforecasters have come close to the accuracy of top humans, and their performance is rising rapidly. In a year or two, we'll see one of the following patterns: Either humans have already come close to some fundamental limit on the predictability of world events - in which case AIs will plateau at or slightly above the human level - or the trend line will continue until AIs are far beyond top humans. By analogy to superintelligence, the natural term for the second situation would be "superforecasting"; since that's already in use, we can cringely call it "ultraforecasting". Daniel Reeves1 makes the case for scenario A here. He describes a study he coauthored in 2010, which found that, on a variety of questions related to sports games and movie box office receipts2, prediction markets only outperformed simple boring statistical models by 3-6%. Maybe those statistical models are close to the best that it's possible to do; the rest is what the mathematicians call aleatoric uncertainty - irreducible complexity downstream of chaotic systems that entirely resist modeling. He could be right. This post isn't meant to be a decisive refutation, but rather a description of why I'm still about 70-30 expecting Scenario B. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/does-forecasting-have-room-at-the

Finalist #4 in the Book Review Contest [This is one of the finalists in the 2026 book review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] Introduction: He Who Saw the Deep I've been thinking, lately, about the first epic story ever written. If you know anything about the Epic of Gilgamesh, you know that it's old. This is part of why I find it so interesting, but not the only part. The best comparison I can think of is the pyramids, which are just a little older. The Great Pyramid of Giza was built in the 2500s BC, around the same time as Stonehenge1 , twenty-five centuries before Cleopatra lived. It predates candles, concrete, and coins; it was centuries old when the first empire rose and when the woolly mammoth went extinct. Around 100 BC, Antipater of Sidon wrote a list of the seven most impressive sights ('Seven wonders') of the world - the pyramids were by far the oldest of the group at the time, and now, two thousand years later, all the others on the list have long since been destroyed. This should remind us that the pyramids don't just stretch far back in time - they stretch forward as well. They are piles of stone. They may be the product of the greatest minds of their age striving to put more stone in a more orderly pile than anyone had before, but still, they are piles of stone, basically artificial rock formations. They will still be there in a hundred thousand years, probably a million. They are so old they brush up against the beginning of civilisation, and yet, we are seeing them today in their youth.

[Original here. Like a Highlights From The Comments post, but including discussion from around the Internet.] Roon is an OpenAI researcher whose popular Twitter presence has catapulted him to the status of extremely-unofficial company representative. He seems spooked: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/highlights-from-the-discourse-on

[continued from Part 1 here. I haven't independently verified each link. On average, commenters will end up spotting evidence that around two or three of the links in each links post are wrong or misleading. I correct these as I see them, and will highlight important corrections later, but I can't guarantee I will have caught them all by the time you read this.] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/links-for-july-2026-part-2

People act like the replication crisis has discredited psychology, that the field is now widely agreed to be a sham, that it can be uncontroversially held up as an example of science gone wrong. These statements are often made in the broadest possible terms: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/psychology-research-is-mostly-fine

You've probably heard about this one by now. If not, you can get up to speed with OpenAI's statement,  The story: OpenAI was testing an unreleased AI (rumored to be GPT-6)1. During a cybersecurity test called ExploitGym, the AI tried to cheat by hacking an unrelated AI startup called Hugging Face2 which it thought might have the answer key on its servers3. Despite being supposedly unable to access the Internet, the AI hacked its way out of its testing environment, then launched a nation-state level attack on Hugging Face using a novel zero-day exploit and "many thousands of individual actions across a swarm of short-lived sandboxes". Hugging Face reported the incident on July 16; OpenAI seems to have only discovered that their AI was involved several days later. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-hugging-face-incident

[This is one of the finalists in the 2026 book review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] A couple of decades ago in Kabul, a fellow aid worker on his third beer came up with a vivid simile for what American money was doing to the Afghan organizations implementing USAID projects. "It's like gluing a rabbit mouth-first to a fire hose. You blast its guts right out of its ass…but as long as the water keeps running, it looks like you've taught the rabbit to dance." Oxford politics professor Masooda Bano uses less lurid language, but Breakdown in Pakistan addresses the same basic phenomenon: how Western aid donors and INGOs unintentionally eviscerate so many of the local institutions they try to "capacity-build." The problem goes beyond the obvious mismatch of huge funds with small-scale organizations. Even low-to-moderate external funding can leave an organization hollowed out, bereft of local participants and the power it once had to motivate change on the ground. Anyone who cares about the global effectiveness of rich-country altruism needs to grasp the dynamic Bano analyzes. From the Western perspective, many of us want to put charitable money into a mechanism that delivers certain measurable outcomes (lives saved, morbidity reduced, income increased above poverty levels, etc.) as efficiently and reliably as possible. So we do our well-intentioned best to shape local institutions into a delivery vehicle for our projects. Readers of James C. Scott's Seeing Like a State will recall how mid-eighteenth-century German "scientific foresters" treated forests similarly, as a mechanism to reliably yield the highest volume of lumber. They planted spruce in vast uniform grids, ordered for easy counting and harvesting, while stripping out other non-timber species. The resulting monoculture plantations seemed ideal for both commercial exploitation and experimentation; it's much easier to control variables when you've removed as much natural variability as possible. Within a few decades, the downsides became evident. The first generation of trees grew strong, sucking up the accumulated benefits of the previous forest's soil ecology; later generations were stunted, as the lack of biodiversity left the soils nutrient-poor. Plantations packed with trees of the same species and same height were far more vulnerable to pathogens, pests, and extreme weather. Large-scale forest die-offs, Waldsterben, eventually forced foresters to drastically modify their approach. That metaphor fits Bano's story even better than my friend's gutted rabbit. Over the last four decades, we've been systematically replacing diverse old-growth institutions with more legible NGO plantations worldwide. While we've been enjoying our increased ability to control outcomes and test hypotheses, the rot has been spreading, the impoverished ecology stunting more and more of the forest. And now the wind through those uniform, hollowed-out aisles has built into a storm. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/breakdown-in-pakistan

[I haven't independently verified each link. On average, commenters will end up spotting evidence that around two or three of the links in each links post are wrong or misleading. I correct these as I see them, and will highlight important corrections later, but I can't guarantee I will have caught them all by the time you read this.] 1: You Are Quoting Bentham: Shakespeare gets credit for coining the most new commonly-used English words, but second place must go to utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham, who invented maximize, minimize, international, percentage, monetary, marginalize, collaborator, unaffordable, the prefixes self-, post-, and infra-, and many more. He also sort of invented jogging? [EDIT: some skepticism] 2: @HashtagGriswold: The name of "Acme", the generic corporation from Looney Tunes, is a "gag lost to time". During the early 20th century, hundreds of companies named themselves Acme because it was at the intersection of signaling quality ("acme" is Greek for "pinnacle") and being very early in the alphabet (meaning it would come first in the phone book, a "Great Depression version of SEO"). 3: @nekokolife brings us a great predictive coding demo (hard before you know the answer; obvious afterwards) - find the cat in this image. Hint: it's not hiding in shadow; its entire body is fully visible. Answer here (X). https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/links-for-july-2026-part-1

Cassie Pritchard, on Twitter: I get why so many liberals are fundamentally disdainful of democracy these days—it's because liberalism is exhausted. It's out of answers. Liberalism won, it delivered the world it promised, and people still aren't content. They're not satisfied. So the people must be wrong. We are unfathomably richer than our ancestors. Output per capita in America today is on the order of 900 times greater than before the invention of agriculture, about ~225 times higher than in 1 CE, and about the same (225 times) higher than Europe in 1000 CE. If measurable productivity were really the greatest object of human society, then we shouldn't just be a little bit happier than people in the distant (or even recent!) past—we should be ecstatic. We should already be living in a utopian age of overwhelming contentment. We should be currently experiencing a kind of paradise. The Kingdom of Heaven, as liberalism conceives of it, has already been made real on Earth. We are living in their Eden, and 20% of people are depressed. We've stopped reproducing ourselves. We're overwhelmingly dissatisfied with our governments, anxious about our economies, and pessimistic about the future. Based on Pritchard's own politics, I imagine she is using this to argue for socialism, but other people use the same reasoning to push fascism, theocracy, or other postliberal commitments. It's a fair argument and deserves an answer. We'll start with an elegant mathematical response which will satisfy nobody, then try to address the emotional impact. The elegant mathematical response is: happiness scales with log(income), not with income: In a large U.S. sample, the shape of the association between happiness and Log(income) was extremely systematic: from $10,000/y to over $500,000/y, average happiness rose almost perfectly linearly with Log(income), with group-level correlations of 0.98-0.99 across a range of happiness measures, including both in-the-moment experience and overall life satisfaction. So if income increased 225x since the medieval era, then using observed coefficients, happiness should have increased about three points on a 1-10 scale. If the average serf would have rated his condition 3/10, we should be at 6/10. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/contra-pritchard-on-liberal-happiness

Finalist #2 in the Book Review Contest [This is one of the finalists in the 2026 book review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] I. SURGERY FOR THE SOUL [content warning: this review is about lobotomies, and includes disturbing descriptions and pictures - SA] Surgery for the soul required a sharp, eight-inch-long instrument—one time, an ice pick from the Uline Ice Company was used—and not much else. It did not require anesthesia or gloves, and the sharp instrument (either a leucotome or the sturdier orbitoclast) was not necessarily sterilized. It took less than ten minutes. The first step was to shock the patient until they lost consciousness. This eliminated the need for anesthesia, since there would be at least a few minutes until the patient regained consciousness, and also made the procedure more flexible; it did not require a surgeon, and did not even have to be performed in a hospital. The second step was to insert the sharp, eight-inch-long instrument into the brain. In most versions of the procedure, surgeons drilled holes into the skull and inserted the leucotome through those holes. Surgeons preferred an approach that allowed them to see where in the brain they were cutting. But the abbreviated procedure used a shortcut. Just above and behind the eye is a thin plate of bone that forms the roof of the eye socket. With enough force, the leucotome can be driven through that bone and into the frontal lobes of the brain. The cracking sound produced when the instrument fractures the orbital roof has caused at least one experienced clinician to faint. Once the instrument was inside, completing the surgery was simply a matter of rotating the tool left and right. The goal was to cut a large number of nerve fibers. Some thought that the procedure might work by severing fibers which maintained certain fixed distorted thought patterns; by destroying them, patients might be freed from the grip of their mental illness. But there wasn't agreement among practitioners regarding why the procedure might work. This is the transorbital lobotomy. Around 50,000 people received lobotomies in the United States in the 1940s and early 1950s; approximately 10,000 used the transorbital method I just described, with the others using approaches surgeons would be more likely to approve of (e.g., using anesthesia, gloves, being able to see where you're cutting…). It was billed as a cure for all sorts of mental illnesses, including schizophrenia, depression, and anxiety. And while some called it a method of last resort—a procedure which should only be used after every other conceivable method had failed—it was often used on people who did not have serious mental problems, and who had not tried less serious treatments. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-book-review-great-and-desperate

"Stochastic terrorism" is the idea that if you spread fear and mistrust against a target, then eventually people will commit violence against that target, and it will be your fault, even if you never specifically said the words "you should commit violence". Some other popular examples of the concept: Nativists spread fear and mistrust about Muslim immigrants, and then racists go on shooting sprees in mosques. The #Resistance insists that Donald Trump would destroy democracy, and then various people try to assassinate Donald Trump. Conservatives spread fear and mistrust about transgender people, and then bigots commit hate crimes against transgender people. Woke people say the police are racist and brutal, and then other woke people murder police officers. Socialists call health insurance companies greedy and accuse them of blocking life-saving treatment, and then Luigi Mangione murdered a health insurance CEO. AI safety activists say that Sam Altman's AI could destroy humanity, and then a guy threw a Molotov cocktail at Sam Altman's house. Liberals said that Charlie Kirk was a hatemonger who was driving Americans apart, and then an assassin murdered Charlie Kirk. The pro-life movement describes abortion as murder, and then pro-life activists assassinated abortion doctors and pro-choice politicians. The "stochastic terrorism" concept is near-unique in how effectively it can be discredited merely by listing many examples of its use together in the same place. Almost no one supports a blanket prohibition on criticizing of all of these different groups of people. "Stochastic terrorism" mostly gets deployed opportunistically, by people who either are too blinkered to realize that the same argument could be leveraged against their own speech, or who hope you're too blinkered to realize that. (in fact, one could argue that accusing someone of stochastic terrorism is itself stochastic terrorism! Here in America, we consider it justified to kill terrorists before they can threaten us further. Reclassifying criticism as terrorism implies it is potentially legitimate to apply the same norm to any especially harsh critics!) Still, a sliver of concept-users make some fig-leaf argument that the cases they approve of are different than the cases they disapprove of. Some proposed principles: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/against-stochastic-terrorism

This was one of the most common objections to Plan A. The plan proposes AI chip regulation to ensure that both China and America know where all the chips are, making their deal to regulate AI together "trustless" (ie neither side can defect even if they want to). Several people argued that this kind of regulation amounted to some kind of "Orwellian dystopia" or "global panopticon". I'm reminded of a story I heard - I can't find it, maybe one of you can - from a DC insider who said it was enraging to work with Silicon Valley, because he would bring up what he thought was the obvious regulatory framework, the tech people would launch into jeremiads on how it could only be enforced by world dictatorship, and he would have to interrupt and say that no, this was how eggs or milk or something had been regulated for fifty years. What regulations does Plan A propose on AI chips? https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/ai-chip-regulation-is-not-a-dystopian

A Is For America It's increasingly clear that nobody has a plan for if this AI thing turns out to be real. Some people have suggestions, but they're all things like "regulate a little more" or "regulate a little less" or "react to things as they come up". This won't be enough. Not just because things may move too quickly - although they will - but because in order to regulate or react, you need to know what you're aiming for, and it's increasingly clear that people can't even visualize what AI going well could look like. What would it take to honestly tell our children that we rose to the occasion, to make the AI transition go down alongside the American Revolution and D-Day as one of our country's finest hours? If your brain sputters and throws an error message at the question, isn't that a problem? It's a total coincidence that Plan A comes out the week after America's 250th birthday. It was supposed to come out earlier, but got delayed. Then it was supposed to come out later, but got pushed forward. Still, the saying goes "A wizard is never late, nor is he early; he arrives exactly when he means to." And if anyone qualifies as wizards, it's Daniel Kokotajlo and his team of forecasters at the AI Futures Project. I previously wrote about Daniel's eerie accuracy over the 2021 - 2025 period. Since then, they've gained worldwide fame for their AI 2027 scenario, which predicted the rise and quick takeover of coding agents in early 2026, plus something like the fight over Fable1. Plan A isn't another prediction. It's a wish list, a positive vision, a road map for navigating the future. It describes the best course of action that Daniel and the AI Futures Project can come up with, and what would happen if we took it. "Really? You got America a policy paper for its 250th birthday? Doesn't America already have enough policy papers?" Sort of, but it's not exactly a policy paper. It starts in a timeline similar to that of AI 2027, on track for a poorly-controlled intelligence explosion that either ends the world or dooms it to permanent techno-oligarchy. But this time, America is blessed with some extra foresight and determination, and makes only good choices (all non-Americans behave naturally, including trying to thwart America when incentivized to do so). It gives a year-by-year description of this best-of-all-possible-worlds, from now through 2040, as predicted by the best AI forecasters alive, with over a dozen supplements explaining all the implementation details. This is a crazy thing to try releasing. Daniel gave me several justifications for doing it anyway, but the one I remember most is that it's supposed to be a floor. When some politician proposes a data center ban, or says that we have to gut safety regulation to compete with China, or promises a job retraining program, think to yourself: does this person have a vision for where all of this ends up? If so, is it as good as Plan A? If not, consider demanding that they do better. I did a lot of writing for AI 2027 and was listed as a co-author. Some of my writing made it into Plan A too, but it was a bit less. The difference is of degree rather than kind, but because of this - and to give me more latitude to discuss it the way I like with less PR blowback - we decided not to put me as a co-author this time. I continue to be proud of having a part in this, small as it may be. (related: everything in this post is my opinion only, and not officially endorsed by the AI Futures Project) https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/introducing-plan-a

[This is one of the finalists in the 2026 book review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] Part 1. The Book of Abraham opens with this paragraph: "A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus." As you can read, The Book of Abraham was written by grand patriarch Abraham upon papyrus while he was in Egypt. Someone managed to get their hands on these papyri and then subsequently translated them into English. This is of profound historical importance if true, because otherwise there is no direct evidence that Abraham existed as a specific historical individual. Who got their hands on these writings? The Mormons. More specifically their founding prophet Joseph Smith who a few years previously translated some other Egyptian writings into the Book of Mormon. The Book of Abraham is not that well-known in comparison, but it's considered canonical scripture in the Mormon church. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-book-review-the-book-of-abraham

The annual prediction market conference was earlier this month. This was the year prediction markets went from an obscure hobby to a multi-billion dollar industry; from semi-illegal to having the President's son as an advisor. I can't remember if anyone talked about any of that. It didn't even register. All eyes were on the AI superforecasters. I met an AI superforecaster startup founder who told me his AI had turned $35 into $2 million on Kalshi over seven months. I met another who said they were beating the stock market by 25% with a market-neutral portfolio - of course this could be luck, but they'd beaten Kalshi and Polymarket by similar margins. In fact, I believe all of these people. The extending-lines-on-graphs community has long predicted that AIs would beat the best human forecasters sometime in 2026 - 2027. What did you expect the bots-finally-beat-humans-at-predicting-the-future moment to look like? Vibes? Papers? Essays? In retrospect, sure: it will look like AIs making crazy profits on prediction markets and beating the stock market by some comfortable amount. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-ai-superforecasters-are-here

I. Having kids has given me new appreciation for old poetry. The first time I read Song of Hiawatha, I skimmed over the part in Book 3 where Hiawatha first meets his father Mudjekeewis: Filled with joy was Mudjekeewis When he looked on Hiawatha, Saw his youth rise up before him In the face of Hiawatha, Saw the beauty of Wenonah From the grave rise up before him. "Welcome!" said he, "Hiawatha, To the kingdom of the West-Wind! Long have I been waiting for you! Youth is lovely, age is lonely, Youth is fiery, age is frosty; You bring back the days departed, You bring back my youth of passion." But this passage communicates a secret of parenthood, something I've never seen discussed anywhere else. By the time you're a parent, you're on your way to being old, ugly, tired, and cynical. I certainly was. This felt like a brute fact about the world: we all know time only moves one direction. Then I had kids, and got confronted with people who were basically me, but young and beautiful and happy. That part of them which wasn't me was the other person I love best in the world, also transmuted into a young and beautiful and happy form. This was a completely unexpected delight which nothing besides this one fragment of poetry had ever tried to prepare me for. I might never have noticed this if I'd only had girls. I love my daughter, but I've never been a little girl; it doesn't bring anything back for me. It's like Mudjekeewis says - you've got to have a son to see your youth rise up before you. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/chip-off-the-old-block

In recent posts on Trump and dictatorship, people have asked me - how do you know you're not suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome? I take this seriously; we've all lost loved ones to this condition. The best check on my reasoning would be an objective measure of the health of American democracy. There are several "democracy indices" that purport to do this, but they have a mixed reputation. My impression is that most current accusations of bias are relatively weak - I agree with Claude's analysis here - but they rely enough on "expert" opinion that I don't expect them to convince a skeptic. The newest entrant in this space - Metaculus Democracy Threat Index - works differently, and deserves a closer look. Metaculus is a prediction site - like a prediction market, except that no money changes hands. People can record their guesses for how future events will turn out, which get aggregated by an algorithm (currently just a recency-weighted median, although they've done fanicer things in the past). Their Democracy Threat Index is a collection of 153 questions relevant to US democracy. For example: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-metaculus-threat-to-democracy

The most controversial part of last week's article on the Midjourney ultrasound scanner was medical experts' recommendation against whole-body screening (including existing whole-body screening technology using MRI). Isn't this crazy? Whole-body screening can save lives by detecting serious diseases like cancer. The experts counterargue that it finds so many false positives - minor zit-like imperfections that would never have caused problems, but which cost patients time, money, anxiety, and side effect burden to investigate - that it ends up net negative. But isn't this just a problem of setting thresholds correctly? Can't you commit to only investigating the most obviously bad things, then ignore the rest? This seemed like an interesting problem to investigate in more depth, so I've tried to get numbers. These are rough estimates loosely based on parameters extracted from unsatisfactory studies1 - please don't take them seriously as exact values, just as right-order-of-magnitude estimates. We'll focus on whole-body MRIs, since this is a well-studied existing technology, then speculate later on how the results might generalize to whole-body ultrasound. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/should-people-avoid-whole-body-screening

like that, except from a medium-sized startup instead of a tech giant. Earlier today, they announced a pivot to medical scanners. The new MidJourney Scanner, which they describe as "a bold new kind of machine to reimagine the foundations of healthcare and our relationships to our bodies", will be a tank of water surrounded by a ring of ultrasound scanners. The patient goes into the tank, the scanners emit ultrasound from all angles, and then some fancy AI reconstructs the echoes into a 3D picture of the body. The result is ultrasound tomography: the same sort of rich data as a CT or MRI, but done via ultrasound, with no harmful radiation, in twenty seconds. This is cool, and it's great to be ambitious, but I think the narrative among the SF AI crowd has escaped its basis in the medical facts, so I want to throw a bit of cold water on it. I'm a psychiatrist, which is about as far as you can get from radiology while still being a doctor, so this is speculation only, and you can ignore it if you find an actual radiologist or ultrasonographer with opinions. Still, my take is that this scanner isn't useful for most current serious medical applications. It could potentially be used to pioneer a new class of low-risk screening applications, but it's unclear whether these are good, and depends a lot on what other future technology gets invented in parallel. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/preliminary-thoughts-on-the-midjourney

In 1917, three children in Fatima, Portugal claimed to have seen the Virgin Mary. They promised she would perform a miracle on a certain day in October. Nearly 100,000 pilgrims arrived, hoping to see whatever happened, and nearly all report that the sun turned pale, changed color, and spun around. Many other writers have investigated the children and their visions, but I was fixated on this sun miracle. Despite popular discussion of "mass hallucinations", this is AFAICT the only example of tens thousands of people all saying they witnessed the same impossible thing, at the same time. I got kind of obsessed with this; you can read my preliminary investigations in this, this, and this post. One of the first things I found was that there were many other sun miracles - at least ten! - similar to Fatima. Most were associated with Marian apparitions, but one was at a Buddhist temple. Bigfoot only gets sighted by lone hikers; ghosts are only ever in the corner of your eye; UFOs are just blurs in the sky. Of all the countries and outposts in the vast empire of the unexplained, it's only this one phenomenon - the spinning, multicolored sun - that regularly gets seen by thousands of people at once, in broad daylight. Speaking of "regularly", there's one spot where it continues even today. Fifty years ago, the Virgin Mary appeared to six children in Medjugorje, Bosnia. Now those children are well past middle-age, but she continues to come. Three of them report that she's appeared less frequently as the years go by, but the others still see her every day at 6:40 sharp. Travelers to Medjugorje, especially those passing through around 6:40, report a slew of miracles, including the spinning sun. Certainly this is true of those whose hearts are pure. But even the atheists get lucky sometimes. I was shocked never to have heard about this before. There's a place you can just go, and have a decent chance of seeing a real miracle? People take vacations to the Bahamas for the beaches, when they could go instead to Medjugorje and see the natural law of the universe get violated in real time? Seems crazy! So in early April, I and my extremely-accommodating, long-suffering wife flew to Dubrovnik, rented a car, and drove down a series of windy mountain roads toward the Bosnian border, hoping for a miracle. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/waiting-for-the-miracle

Guest post by Alexander "Sasha" Putilin [This is a guest post by 2024 ACX grantee Sasha Putilin. I encourage any ACX grantees who are interested to write about their projects. - SA] The results of my ACX Grants 2024 project are in. The project attempted to replicate the 2023 study "Learning at your brain's rhythm: individualized entrainment boosts learning for perceptual decisions". It claimed that if you read a person's brain waves, figured out an individual peak alpha frequency, and flashed a bright white light at that frequency, then they learned a certain perceptual task faster. Why bother? The result hinted that learning may depend in part on how well the brain keeps its rhythms coordinated. In other words, perceptual learning may rely on an internal brain metronome. If flickering light could act as an external metronome, it might help the brain maintain the right rhythm and learn faster. The study offered an invitation to develop new frontiers of neuroscience and biohacking. If the effect generalised to other types of learning, you could build a learning helmet: put it on your head, let it read your brainwaves, flicker light tailored to your individual brain — and you learn a new skill quicker. And no, it didn't replicate. Most likely it can't replicate, because the effect is probably not real. The original study obscured the data with summary statistics. Running a $32,000 replication was excessive. We could've caught the issue with this study if we simply looked at the original data carefully. *record scratch* *freeze frame* Yep, that's me. You're probably wondering how I got here. Here's the story. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/never-cross-a-river-four-feet-deep

I recently had a minor spat over someone misinterpreting my AI beliefs (see section marked "Update" at the bottom here), so I thought I would list them in one place, so I can refer people when they ask. Timelines1 Define AGI as AI intelligent enough to do 90% of knowledge work jobs. I think there's a 25% chance of AGI by 20272, a 50% chance by 2034, and a 75% chance by 2045. Basic argument: In a certain sense, AI is already "smart" enough for this (eg it can answer quantum physics problems, which require higher IQ than most knowledge work). Its remaining limitations are that it's confused, unagentic, lacks situational awareness, and tends to hallucinate. The METR time horizon graph, and several other related benchmarks/experiments/intuition pumps, suggest it's improving on time horizons at an (exponential) rate that lets it cross human-level performance sometime around the early end of the schedule above, and subjectively it feels like harder-to-measure constructs like situational awareness are improving about as fast. Arguments for earlier: recursive self-improvement causes a speedup compared to the trend. This is one of the biggest blank spots in my model: I don't know how fast RSI will progress, and I don't think anyone else does either. There's some function mapping a combination of AI talent and compute to progress, and we don't know how it behaves in the domain when there's far more talent than compute available. It could fizzle out completely for lack of compute, or it could go vertical. The AI Futures Project has done some of the best work trying to model this, but even they have low confidence.

The philosophers of the Frankfurt School practiced a technique called negative dialectics, where concepts are defined as much by what you can't say about them as what you can. Appropriately, the Frankfurt School has ended up defined by what you can't say about them. You can't say that they invented a new form of left-wing thought called Cultural Marxism. This would be (according to Wikipedia) the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, a "far right anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that misinterprets Western Marxism, especially the Frankfurt School, as being responsible for modern progressive movements, identity politics, and political correctness". You're not supposed to dub them a transitional stage between Communism and postmodernism. You're not allowed to speculate that a lot of the academic humanities, as they're practiced today, descend from the Frankfurt School's brand of critical theory. You're not supposed to think of them as the point where the muscular pro-technology leftism of the early 1900s shattered into the pessimistic degrowth leftism of the present. Art is long, life is short. Most of us only manage to not do a few things in our limited span on Earth. But the Frankfurt School managed to not invent so many movements - to not be involved in so many of the crucial ideological shifts of the past century - that they caught my attention. Who were these people? What other aspects of our culture might we be unable to say they were involved in? For answers, I turned to the classic history of the group, Martin Jay's The Dialectical Imagination. The basics are simple enough: the School was founded in Frankfurt in 1923. It attracted great philosophers like Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and Herbert Marcuse. When the Nazis took power in the early 1930s, the mostly-Jewish Frankfurters fled to America, where friendly locals helped them continue their work in affiliation with Columbia University. Mid-century Americans were suckers for sophisticated European intellectuals, and when the rise of fascism and World War II started dominating headlines, the German-Jewish Frankfurters were natural experts to help Americans process the situation. By the end of the war, they were firmly established as thought leaders. Some - including Horkheimer and Adorno - returned to Germany to rebuild its intellectual culture from the ruins; others stayed in America and remained relevant through the 60s and 70s. But figuring out what the Frankfurters believed is more complicated. Forget about the thin line between universally-acknowledged fact and fascist conspiracy theory. The School itself was famously coy, worrying that if they explained themselves too clearly, people would caricature their beliefs and integrate them into the existing capitalist system. Even when they did speak "clearly", it was in the sort of German philosophical register where "the negation of the negation" is a totally normal thing to say. Having only read a single book on them, I will no doubt fall into all the failure modes that they and their successors warned us against. But here are the analogies, intuition pumps, and parables that I found helpful. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-the-dialectical-imagination

I'm not saying AI is superintelligent or can decide better than you can. I'm saying that if you - like me - spend an hour or so doing research before voting on local seats, AI can aid that research very effectively. And if you don't do that research - because you weren't willing to waste an hour on it before - AI makes it so much faster that you might want to start. I gave Claude a prompt something like (edited for coherence): I'll be voting in the June 2026 California primary. I'm a centrist liberal abundance YIMBY whose favorite political writers are Kelsey Piper, Matt Yglesias, and Ezra Klein. I'm wary of government overreach, but I'm not a doctrinaire libertarian and want to help people when we can figure ways to do it that work. I'm going to ask you about each race on my ballot, and I'd like for you to list the various candidates' bios, policies, endorsements, your read on the most important differences between them, and your advice for me as I try to make my choice. …and got back answers like the following: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/use-ai-this-election

One popular objection to AI concerns is to declare that LLMs can never be AGI. You need a "new paradigm". Therefore, AGI is so far in the future that it's not worth worrying about. A common counterargument is to claim that no, LLMs can become AGI. But even without that counterargument, I think the "therefore" fails on its own terms. The key question is: how much of a new paradigm do we need? The landmark discoveries on the road to modern LLMs are something like: 1950s: Neural networks 1967: Multi-layer perceptron 2010: Modern deep learning 2017: Transformer, LLM 2022: RLHF, chatbots 2024: Chain of thought / test-time compute We can think of this as an "evolutionary tree", where a given LLM (let's say Claude Opus 4.7) shares a recent "common ancestor" with all other chatbots, and only a very distant "common ancestor" with everything else descended from the multi-layer perceptron. If AGI needs a "new paradigm", what common ancestor can we expect AGI and LLMs to share? AGI will very likely use neural networks, because the human brain is a neural network and qualifies as an AGI. It will probably use deep learning, because although deep learning isn't exactly analogous to the brain, it seems like a pretty reasonable way to emulate the brain's learning algorithms onto computer hardware. Skeptics like Yann LeCun and Gary Marcus usually pinpoint LLMs/transformers as the step where we went wrong. LeCun thinks that the first AGIs may be within the deep learning paradigm (but not LLMs); Marcus thinks that they'll combine insights from deep learning with something else. How soon should we expect a new paradigm as revolutionary as LLMs/transformers? Since we got LLMs/transformers nine years ago, Lindy's Law suggests nine more years. How soon should we expect a new paradigm as revolutionary as deep learning? By the same logic, sixteen years from now. Lindy's Law has a heavy tail, which means we can't simply halve these to find our 25th percentile estimate. Our 25th percentile estimate for the next advance as exciting as LLMs should be three years from now; for deep learning, it's five years. So even if you think AGI will require a further paradigm shift as big as the invention of the LLM or as deep learning itself, you should have 25% chance it will be developed in the next 3 - 5 years. Which is about as long as the LLM-only crowd think things will take! This isn't an excuse for relegating the risk of AGI to some vague indefinite future. It could still be the late 2020s or early 2030s! (Might we expect that low-hanging-fruit effects make the next paradigm harder to find than the last one? In practice, fields get more researchers as time goes on, and that effect usually causes time-between-advances to be approximately constant. And in fact, the number of AI researchers has grown at an unprecedented pace for a scientific field, and growth will enter an even faster regime once AIs themselves can contribute. Overall these make me think things will go even faster than Lindy's Law predicts - but I think Lindy's Law is a useful upper bound.) (Would there still be a long time between the invention of the new paradigm and the point where it could be used to maximum effect? It took five years between the invention of the transformer and ChatGPT, the first commercially-successful transformer-based project. But most of that time was spent scaling up, and we've already scaled up. If we invent a new paradigm in 2030, then any frontier lab willing to bet on it can quickly provide it with levels of compute sufficient to train human-brain-sized models.) This is my attempt to talk to the new-paradigm-wanters in their own language, but I think there's also a subtler point that undermines this worldview. In the past, new paradigms have proven useful in allowing scaling to continue after an old paradigm passed the regime where it could efficiently convert scale to results. LLMs still seem to be able to convert scale to results; while this continues, new paradigms won't be necessary, and frontier labs won't risk pursuing them. If scaling ever hits a wall, there will be a few months of confusion as frontier labs look over various new-paradigm-proposals that they already have lying around, and throw them at the wall to see what breaks through. Then scaling will continue from wherever it left off. The best way to forecast future AI progress is to extrapolate from current LLM scaling. This should work if LLMs scale all the way to AGI. But it may also work even if they don't. First, because we might get the new paradigm so soon that it won't be a significant source of delay. And second, because the most likely place for a new paradigm to start is wherever LLMs stop working, going at the same rate. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/new-paradigms-wont-save-you

Sorry, I give up. In past elections, I've covered every single candidate for governor of California, from the incumbents all the way down to the cranks. In 2022 there were twenty-six of them, and I covered them all. But sorry, I give up. This year there are sixty. It's too many. I can't disambiguate them all into unique individuals with their own personalities, hopes, and dreams. So as consolation for the list I'm not giving you, here are the basic types, and a few examples of each. The Top-Tier Democrats One of these people will definitely win, but what else is there to say about them? They're all the same. They've all paid the danegeld to some set of unions and interest groups, then put up some kind of incredibly generic platform about how they're compassionate but also a fighter. I can't bring myself to name any of them or discuss them further. The Top-Tier Republicans More or less the same as the top-tier Democrats, minus the chance of winning. They all have cowboy hats and flag pins. They all pose on horseback at their ranch. They all promise to Take Back California for the forces of America and its god, Donald J. Trump. None of these people are actually interesting, but honorable mention to Sheriff Chad Bianco, whose name is Italian for "white Chad". He might be the perfect Republican candidate: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-types-of-candidate-you-find-in

"All exponentials eventually become sigmoids" is an annoying AI talking point. If someone presents a graph like this… ….and points out that it seems like AI capabilities could soon reach the level marked "High", then the height of intelligent debate is to point out that actually, the trend could go like this: …and then it would never reach the level marked "High"! In slogan form, this is "all exponentials eventually become sigmoids" (a sigmoid is the s-shape of the second graph, which starts exponential but gradually flattens out). It's technically true. No process can keep growing forever; eventually it hits physical or practical limits. For example, total cases during an epidemic is classically sigmoid:

In conclusion, the only good theory of taste is Nostalgebraist's. He wrote a post called Hydrogen Jukeboxes, analyzing the literary output of an AI called R1. This AI tried hard to write good fiction, which was part of the problem. It crammed its stories with what Nostalgebraist called (stealing a term from Ginsberg) the "eyeball kick" - a flashy stylistic move that immediately catches the reader's attention and "wows" them. Here are examples - some from R1, others from an experimental OpenAI model trained specifically for fiction-writing: "There is a prompt like a spell: write a story about AI and grief, and the rest of this is scaffolding—protagonists cut from whole cloth, emotions dyed and draped over sentences." "When the jar of Sam's laughter shattered, Eli found the sound pooled on the floorboards like liquid amber, thick and slow. It had been their best summer, that laughter—ripe with fireflies and porch wine—now seeping into the cracks, fermenting." "And so I built a Mila and a Kai and a field of marigolds that never existed. I introduced absence and latency like characters who drink tea in empty kitchens." "The morning her shadow began unspooling from her feet, Clara found it coiled beneath the kitchen table like a serpent made of smoke." Nostalgebraist and another writer, Coagulopath, catalogue some of the most common AI eyeball kicks, each occurring across multiple LLM models: "An overwhelming reliance on cliche. Everything is a shadow, an echo, a whisper, a void, a heartbeat, a pulse, a river, a flower—you see it spinning its Rolodex of 20-30 generic images and selecting one at random." "Conjunctions combining one thing that is abstract and/or incorporeal with another thing that is concrete and/or sensory." "Repetitive writing. Once you've seen about ten R1 samples you can recognize its style on sight. The way it italicises the last word of a sentence. Its endless "not thing x, but thing y" parallelisms…the way how, if you don't like a story, it's almost pointless reprompting it: you just get the same stuff again, smeared around your plate a bit."   https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/nostalgebraists-hydrogen-jukeboxes

(a continuation of yesterday's post) Reddit Vexillology Vexillology is the c. elegans of aesthetics - the simplest model organism that lets us observe dynamics of interest. I haven't read enough MFA books to do more than relay the thoughts of my betters, and you probably haven't either. But anyone can have opinions on flags. If you're like me, you learned the following code of good flags: They should be so simple that a child could draw them. No images, no "busy" areas, and - for God's sake - no text The rule of tincture: "never put metal on metal, or color on color". In medieval heraldry, "metals" were yellow and white (sometimes implemented with literal gold and silver) and "colors" were every other color (except black, which is a "fur" and has its own rules). A good flag shouldn't have a metal touch another metal, or a color touch another color. So the French tricolor (blue then white then red) is okay, but a hypothetical (blue then red then white) tricolor wouldn't be okay, because blue would be touching red, which would be "color on color". Every so often, a US state will decide that its flag is politically incorrect and sponsor a contest to design a new one. Then online vexillologists will go over the entries, savaging any that violate the code. "Look how busy this one is! It has four different colors!" "Oh god, this one literally included text! Can you believe it!" They'll moan and scowl and ask why everyone can't be more like Indonesia. Good old Indonesia, they know how to follow the rules: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/three-model-organisms-for-taste

  Last year I wrote a piece on artistic taste, which got many good responses from (eg) Ozy, Frank Lantz, and Sympathetic Opposition. I tastelessly forgot to respond to them until now, but I appreciate how they forced me to refine my thinking. In particular, they helped me realize that "taste" and "good art" are hard to talk about, because the discussions conflate many different things: 1: Sensory Delight. Ode To Joy makes the listener feel joyful. Michelangelo's David fills the viewer with awe at the human figure. The great cathedrals are impressive buildings, in a way that hits you like a punch to the gut. These judgments are preconscious, widespread, and don't necessarily require artistic sophistication. 2: Novelty and Innovation: Someone gets credit for doing art in a way that has never been done before. The early Impressionists invented a new way of looking at the world and explored all of its little corners. A modern Impressionist painter may be able to match their technical skill, but not their novelty; therefore, the modern would be a mere curiosity while the originals were great artists. For a modern person to be a great artist, they would have to explore entirely new media - hence the surprising and transgressive nature of modern art. 3: Paying Attention / Pattern Language: Tasteful people, viewing art over the generations and paying deep attention to it, have developed a sense of balance, composition, contrast, and what should and shouldn't be done. We can debate how predetermined the exact grammar of this language was a priori, but for better or worse people are sensitized to it and will judge works with it in mind. A good work of art should either conform to this language, or defy it deliberately and thoughtfully (that is, in a way that transcends it rather than ignores it). Along with these three big ones, here are smaller ones that might or might not be combinations or subvarieties of these: 4: Context And Discussion: Some great art raises questions, and subsequent great art proposes answers, or variations on the questions, or further elucidates the subject. The great artists of any given time are in conversation with their peers and the great artists of all past ages; new art can be judged on whether it shows awareness of, and contributes to, this conversation. Other forms of context are more personal - is a book about human evil more aesthetic if its author survived the Holocaust? 5: Literal Ability To Understand A Work: You can't fully appreciate Animal Farm unless you know the history of Soviet communism and recognize the book as an allegory for that history. If someone who knew nothing about this liked it as a cute story about talking animals, their appreciation would be different from (inferior to?) that of more knowledgeable people. 6: Changing Fashions: In 1940, Beaux-Arts and Frank Lloyd Wright were the heights of American architecture. By 1950, nobody who was anybody was doing Beaux-Arts or Prairie; it was all International Style. One could very charitably attribute this to the novelty-seeking drive above; but it's implausible that Prairie style architecture was novel and beloved in 1940, a few houses completely exhausted its potential, but the explosion of International Style buildings didn't restore the balance such that the low-hanging-fruit level level was lower in Prairie style again. More likely this was just a fashion effect where Prairie style was cool in 1940, then uncool in 1950. 7: Political And Ideological Point-Making: Great art may convey some truth about the world. This could be a purely aesthetic truth. But in the case of Uncle Tom's Cabin, the truth was "slavery is bad". Other truths are conveyed symbolically (for example, cathedrals being shaped like crosses) or through design choices (for example, the austerity of Bauhaus architecture making it more suitable for socialist housing). 8: Ability To Profoundly Affect Or Transform You: Maybe this one is emergent from some combination of sensory delight, novelty and point-making. But some people say they come away from art transformed, in a way which is neither just sensory delight nor just political ideology. Philosophers have argued for millennia about exactly what way this is, but hopefully we've all had this experience and can accept an extensional definition. These people enumerated these things to defend taste. I will instead take the bold stand that conflating many different things is bad: it frees people from thinking too hard about any particular one of them, or the ways they interact. Here are my arguments for deliberately ignoring about half of these. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/contra-everyone-on-taste

Constraint consequentialists believe that you should try to do good things that improve the world, unless those break hard-and-fast rules ("deontological bars"). For example, you shouldn't assassinate democratically-elected leaders, even very bad ones. Why not? Since bad leaders set bad policy, and bad policy can kill many thousands of people, wouldn't it be for the greater good? Because there's always one gun-owner who thinks any given leader's policies are bad, so without the rule, every leader would face constant assassination attempts, probably some of them would succeed, and the nation would either crumble or degenerate into a security state. This explanation combines two sub-explanations. In the first, you are wrong about whether assassinating the leader would produce good consequences - you think it would, but actually it would produce instability, tyranny, etc. In the second, you're right - maybe you're a brilliant forecaster who can see that this particular assassination would end with an orderly succession by a superior ruler. But you know that there are far more people who think they are such brilliant forecasters than who actually are, and you either use the Outside View to suspect that you are also deceiving yourself, or at least realize that the only stable bright-line equilibrium is for everyone - true brilliant forecasters and wannabes alike - to refuse to act upon their apparent foreknowledge. "Don't kill people" is a gimme. What other deontological bars constrain our actions? https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/what-deontological-bars

As a blogger, I hear about lots of projects to "solve debate", or "disagree better", or "map arguments". Often these are ACX grant applications. I always turn them down. They're well-intentioned, sophisticated, and doomed. I appreciate that Internet arguments usually don't go well, that there are lots of ways to improve them, and that this is a worthy cause. But I've also seen a dozen projects of this sort fail. Here's why I think yours will too: "Debate" almost never corresponds to mappable arguments. The simplest "solve debate" proposal is the argument map. Some technology helps people decompose arguments into premises and conclusions, then lets skeptics point out where the premises are wrong, or where the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. But almost no real argument works that way. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-attempt-to-solve-debate-will

[I haven't independently verified each link. On average, commenters will end up spotting evidence that around two or three of the links in each links post are wrong or misleading. I correct these as I see them, and will highlight important corrections later, but I can't guarantee I will have caught them all by the time you read this.] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/links-for-april-2026

This month, rationalist institution Lighthaven is running their second Inkhaven, a bootcamp for aspiring bloggers. Participants have to publish a post a day, or they get kicked out. You can read their posts here. I'm too old to manage that pace, but agreed to participate as an advisor. Then I missed the first half of the month because I was on a trip. As compensation, here are fifteen pieces of writing advice for the fifteen days I was absent. 1: Against microdishonesty Sasha Chapin has a piece If You Have Writer's Block, Maybe Stop Lying To Yourself. Maybe lying gives Sasha writer's block, but for my last set of mentees it more often just made things sound awkward and unclear. The English language hates the slightest whiff of dishonesty, even levels so small you wouldn't naturally notice them yourself. It punishes you by making your writing worse. I remember asking one of my mentees to take out a tangential paragraph that didn't really connect to the rest of the argument. They refused, and awkwardly admitted that it was the one thing they really wanted to say with the essay. They'd written the essay about something else, because the other thing was more presentable. Then they'd smuggled their actual point in as a payload. Clever plan, but your readers will notice. There are countless reasons to lie when you're writing. Maybe you thought of a really clever introduction, but the thing it introduces is 5% different from the thing you really want to say, so you need to be a little vague and smush them together. Maybe you have a really great perspective on something which is almost like the topic du jour, and you need to make it sound like it's exactly the topic du jour to get it published. Maybe you can rebut 99 out of 100 arguments for some stupid evil position that you want to debunk, but it would be embarrassing to leave one hanging, so you smudge it together into the other 99 arguments. English will punish you for all these things. Sometimes there's no better solution and you have to settle, but your readers will notice.   https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/half-a-month-of-consolation-writing

Viktor Orban, __________ of Hungary for sixteen years, lost his re-election bid earlier this week. The simplest phrase to put in the blank is "prime minister". Some people have proposed more loaded terms like "strongman", "autocrat", and "dictator". But he did lose his re-election bid earlier this week, prompting comments that these more loaded terms, especially the d-word, might have been hyperbolic. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/orban-was-bad-even-though-we-dont 

I. "Telescopic altruism" is a supposed tendency for some people to ignore those close to them in favor of those further away. Like its cousin "virtue signaling", it usually gets used to own the libs. Some lib cares about people in Gaza - why? Shouldn't she be thinking about her friends and neighbors instead? The only possible explanation is that she's an evil person who hates everyone around her, but manages to feel superior to decent people by pretending to "care" about foreigners who she'll never meet. This collapses upon five seconds' thought. Okay, so the lib is angry about the Israeli military killing 50,000 people in Gaza. Do you think she would be angry if the Israeli military killed 50,000 of her neighbors? Probably yes? Then what's the problem? "But vegetarians care about animals more than humans!" Okay, yeah, they sure do get mad about a billion pigs kept for their entire lives in cages too small to turn around in, then murdered and eaten. Do you think they'd care if a billion of their closest friends were kept for their entire lives in cages too small to turn around in, then murdered and eaten? I dunno, seems bad. Maybe there is some possible comparison where some altruist cares about some set of foreigners more than a comparable set of countrymen? The war in Gaza killed 50,000 people, but the opioid crisis kills a bit over 50,000 Americans per year - is everyone who cares about Gaza exactly equally concerned about the opioid crisis? No, but there's a better explanation - people care about dramatic deaths in big explosions more than boring health crises, regardless of where they happen. Everyone, lib and con alike, cared more about 9-11 than about a hundred opioid crises, even though the former only killed 4% as many people as the latter. And even the people who care about the opioid crisis usually can't bring themselves to care about anything on the List Of Top US Causes Of Death, which are all extra-boring things like diabetes. Once you match like to like, nope, it's pretty hard to find a "telescopic altruism" example that stands out from the general background of people having weird priorities. Nearly everyone cares about people close to them more than people far away. If there's a lib who would attend a Gaza protest instead of getting their deathly-ill kid emergency medical care, I haven't met them - and the "telescopic altruism" crowd certainly hasn't provided evidence of their existence. Instead, the people who care about their neighbors 1,000,000x times more than Gazans point to the people who 'only' care about their neighbors 1,000x times more than Gazans and say "Look! Those guys care about Gazans more than their neighbors! Get 'em!" in order to avoid any debate about whether a million or a thousand or whatever is the right multiplier. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/against-the-concept-of-telescopic

In 1917, some Portuguese children started seeing visions of the Virgin Mary. The Virgin told them she would enact a great miracle on a certain day in October, and a crowd of 100,000 gathered to witness the event. According to eyewitness reports, newspaper articles, etc, they saw the sun spin around, change colors, and do various other miraculous things. At least a hundred separate testimonies of the event have come down to us, with only two or three people saying they didn't see it. Catholics continue to bring this up as one of the best-attested miracles and strongest empirical proofs of the faith - including here on Substack, where there was a spirited debate about the event last fall. I did my best to research the event, and the results were The Fatima Sun Miracle: Much More Than You Wanted To Know and Highlights From The Comments On Fatima. The main thing I was able to add to the Substack discussion, if not the broader worldwide one, was a survey of similar events. There were apparent sun miracles at various other Catholic sites and apparitions of the Virgin, including a crowd of hundreds of thousands in Italy, and a small town in Bosnia where they seem to happen regularly. But also, people who "sungaze" - a weird alternative medicine practice where people stare at the sun in the hopes that maybe this will help something and they won't go blind - report sometimes seeing the sun spin and change color in similar ways. And Buddhist meditators report that concentrating very hard on any bright light will cause similar things to happen. Still, the Catholics - especially original Fatima-Substacker Ethan Muse - were not convinced. The other Catholic sightings could have been other real miracles, equally attributable to the Virgin. The sungazers were staring at the sun for a long time, unlike the Fatima pilgrims who just happened to glance up at it. And the meditators were doing sophisticated contemplative exercises, again different from the Fatima pilgrims who just looked up and saw it. These were suggestive, but there was no record of a miracle exactly like Fatima happening within a non-Catholic religious tradition. Until now! Substacker Arthur T, building on research from Sophia In The Shell, has found a 1990s Buddhist sun miracle very similar to Fatima. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/a-buddhist-sun-miracle

Michael Halassa: Did John Nash Really Have Schizophrenia? is a good article on the genetics of psychosis. Previous research found that schizophrenia genes decreased IQ but increased educational attainment. Usually IQ and education are correlated, so this was surprising. The new research finds two components to schizophrenia genetic risk. The first component, shared with bipolar, increases educational attainment. The second component, not shared with bipolar, decreases IQ. They average out to the observed full-spectrum genetic signal of constant-to-increased educational attainment paired with constant-to-decreased IQ. In 2021, I discussed tradeoff vs. failure models of psychiatric conditions, and said that most conditions were probably a mix of both. The new research seems to confirm this: the first genetic component of schizophrenia is a tradeoff: bad insofar as it gives you higher schizophrenia risk, good insofar as it gives you higher educational attainment. Most likely this has something to do with creativity or motivation. The second component is a failure: bad in every way, with no compensating advantage. Most likely this is detrimental mutations in genes for neurogenesis and synaptic pruning. I mostly wasn't thinking about schizophrenia when I wrote about tradeoffs vs. failures, so I was surprised to see the theory so nicely reflected there. But in retrospect, this is common sense. All multifactorial problems should naturally be combinations of tradeoffs and failures. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/how-natural-tradeoff-and-failure

SUPPORTER: America needs to start talking to China to come up with a bilateral agreement to pause AI. The agreement would need to be transparent, mutually enforceable, and… OPPONENT: We can't unilaterally pause AI! China would destroy us! SUPPORTER: As I said, we need to start negotiating a bilateral agreement so that both sides will… OPPONENT: You fool! Don't you know that while we unilaterally pause AI, China will be racing ahead and using their lead to erode our fundamental rights and freedoms? How could you be so naive! SUPPORTER: Look, I promise this is about negotiating for a mutual pause. We don't think a unilateral pause would work any more than you would. But we think that if we negotiate… OPPONENT: And while we unilaterally pause, do you think China will just be twiddling their thumbs, doing nothing? Obviously not! This is about ceding the future to our rivals! SUPPORTER: I get the feeling you're not listening to me. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/every-debate-on-pausing-ai

I. John Rawls was born in Baltimore, Maryland, on February 21, 1921. Not John Rawls the famous liberal philosopher (or, rather, John Rawls the famous liberal philosopher was also born in Baltimore, Maryland on February 21, 1921, but he is not the subject of our story). This is John Rawls the alcoholic. John Rawls the alcoholic was twelve when they lifted Prohibition. He partook immediately, and dropped out of school the following year, supporting himself through a combination of odd jobs, petty crime, and handouts. When he was 41, he committed a not-so-petty crime - killing a man in a bar fight. Although he fled the scene and escaped without consequences, it turned him paranoid. Odd jobs and petty crime were both young men's games, and the handouts became an ever-larger share of his income. He learned to play the field, peddling the same sob story to the Salvation Army on Monday Wednesday Friday, the YMCA Tuesday and Thursday, and the local churches on weekends. He expected to drink himself to death by age 60, and there wasn't much to do but wait out the clock. But as he entered his early fifties, the handouts started to dry up. The Salvation Army closed shop, the YMCA pivoted to physical fitness, and even the churches were no longer as charitable as before. One day he ran into a man he'd once seen volunteering at Salvation Army, and asked him what had happened. "You haven't heard?" asked the volunteer. "None of the rich people donate to us anymore. They're all giving to this group called the John Rawls Foundation. If you're in trouble, you should talk to them. They're swimming in money!" This naturally interested John Rawls the alcoholic, so he obtained their address from the volunteer and immediately headed over to their office building. He was met by a psychologist, who introduced himself as John Rawls ("Not the one the foundation is named after, just a funny coincidence, haha!") John Rawls Psychologist told John Rawls Alcoholic that their foundation would be happy to help, but that he would have to get through a screening process first. The screening process would involve being administered a certain experimental drug and led through a hypnotic induction. The social worker would record his answers, and, if he passed the test, he would receive a monthly stipend that far exceeded the sum of his previous Salvation Army, YMCA, and church handouts. "Like a truth serum?" asked John Rawls Alcoholic. "Sure, let's say like a truth serum," said John Rawls Psychologist. "When will the screening process be?" asked John Rawls Alcoholic. "How about immediately?" asked John Rawls Psychologist. So John Rawls Alcoholic found himself lying on a bed in what looked like a medical examination room, as John Rawls Psychologist shone a piercing light into his eye. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/being-john-rawls  

Every few weeks, a Trump administration official comes up with an insane plan that would devastate some American industry, region, or demographic. Maybe an Undersecretary of the Interior decides that aluminum is "woke" and should be banned. They circulate a draft order saying it will be illegal for US companies to use aluminum, starting in two weeks, Thank You For Your Attention To This Matter. Next begins a frantic scramble on the parts of everyone affected, trying to make them back down. Industry lobbies, think tanks, and public intellectuals exchange frantic emails, starting with "They said WHAT?", progressing on to "Oh God we are so f****d", and occasionally ending in some kind of plan. Sending letters. Phoning members of Congress. Calling up that one lobbyist who had a fancy dinner with Trump a year ago and is still riding that high to claim he has vast administration influence. I've been on the periphery of a handful of these campaigns, usually in medicine or AI. The common thread is that protests by liberals rarely work. The Trump administration loves offending liberals! If every Democratic member of Congress condemns the plan to ban aluminum, that just proves that aluminum really was "woke", and makes them want to do it more. What works, sometimes, is objections/protests from Republicans and Trump supporters. These are hard to get. Trump supporters might support the insane plan. Even if they don't, they might be nervous to speak up or appear disloyal. You've got to find someone who's supported Trump until now, built up a reputation for loyalty, but this one time they finally snap and cash in some of their favors and agree to speak out. Sometimes it's because they're an aluminum magnate themselves and this would destroy their business. Other times they're just a think tank guy or influencer who happens to be really knowledgeable on this one issue and willing to take a stand on it. By such people is the world preserved. https://readscottalexander.com/posts/acx-support-your-local-collaborator

  I hate the term "hallucinations" for when AIs say false things. It's perfectly calculated to mislead the reader - to make them think AIs are crazy, or maybe just have incomprehensible failure modes. AIs say false things for the same reason you do. At least, I did. In school, I would take multiple choice tests. When I didn't know the answer to a question, I would guess. Schoolchild urban legend said that "C" was the best bet, so I would fill in bubble C. It was fine. Probably got a couple extra points that way, maybe raised my GPA by 0.1 over the counterfactual. Some kids never guessed. They thought it was dishonest. I had trouble understanding them, but when I think back on it, I had limits too. I would guess on multiple choice questions, but never the short answer section. "Who invented the cotton gin?" For any "who invented" question in US History, there's a 10% chance it's Thomas Edison. Still, I never put down his name. "Who negotiated the purchase of southern Arizona from Mexico?" The most common name in the United States has long been "John Smith", applying to 1/10,000 individuals. An 0.01% chance of getting a question right is better than zero, right? If I'd guessed "John Smith" for every short answer question I didn't know, I might have gotten ~1 extra point in my school career, with no downside. You can go further. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/shameless-guesses-not-hallucinations

Guest post by David Speiser   The Problem Everyone hates Congress. That poll showing that cockroaches are more popular than Congress is now thirteen years old, and things haven't improved in those thirteen years. Congressional approval dipped below 20% during the Great Recession and hasn't recovered since. A republic where a supermajority of citizens neither like nor trust their representatives is not the most stable of foundations, so it should not be shocking that the legislative branch is being subsumed by the executive. What's the solution? Many have been proposed, some with very snazzy websites. FairVote thinks that ranked choice voting and proportional representation will solve it. The Congressional Reform Project has another snazzy website with such bold proposals as "Increase the opportunity for Members to form relationships across party lines, including by bipartisan issues conferences." There are more think tanks. They want to enlarge the House by a few hundred members, switch to a biennial budget system, spend more on Congressional staffers, and introduce term limits, among many other suggestions. There are op-eds too. Here's how the Atlantic wants to fix Congress. The New York Times of course has a solution. Here on Substack, Matt Yglesias thinks proportional representation is the solution, and Nicholas Decker has an especially interesting solution. These proposals, no matter which direction they're coming from, have two things in common. The first is that they largely agree on the problem: members of Congress are disconnected from their constituents. Thanks to a combination of huge gerrymandered districts, national partisan polarization, and the influence of large donors, a representative has little incentive to care about the experience of individual people in their district. The second thing that all these proposed solutions have in common is that none of them will ever be implemented. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/last-rights

California lets interest groups propose measures for the state ballot. Anyone who gathers enough signatures (currently 874,641) can put their hare-brained plans before voters during the next election year. This year, the big story is the 2026 Billionaire Tax Act, a 5% wealth tax on California's billionaires. Your views on this will mostly be shaped by whether or not you like taxing the rich, but opponents have argued that it's an especially poorly written proposal: It includes a tax on "unrealized gains", like a founder's share of a private company which hasn't been sold yet. This could be an existential threat to the Silicon Valley model of building startups that are worth billions on paper before their founders see any cash. Since most billionaires keep most of their wealth in stocks, any wealth tax will need some way to reach these (cf. complaints about the "buy, borrow, die" strategy for avoiding taxation). But there are better ways to do this (for example, taxing at liquidation and treating death as a virtual liquidation event), other wealth tax proposals have included these, and the California proposal doesn't. It appears to value company stakes by voting rights rather than ownership, so a typical founder who maintains control of their company despite dilution might see themselves taxed for more than they have. Garry Tan explains the math here with reference to Google. However, Current Affairs has a good article (?!) that pushes back, saying the proposal exempts public companies like Google. Although private companies would still be affected, this would be so obviously unfair that founders would easily win an exemption based on a provision allowing them to appeal nonsensical results. Still, some might counterobject that proposed legislation is generally supposed to be good, rather than so bad that its victims will easily win on appeal. It's retroactive, applying to billionaires who lived in California in January, even though it won't come to a vote until November. Proponents argue that this is necessary to prevent billionaire flight; opponents point out that alternatively, billionaires could flee before the tax even passes (as some have already done). One plausible result is that the tax fails (either at the ballot box or the courts), but only after spurring California's richest taxpayers to flee, leading to a net decrease in revenue. Some people propose that it could decrease state revenues overall even if it passed, if it drove out enough billionaires, though others disagree. Pro-tech-industry newsletter Pirate Wires finds that 20 out of 21 California tech billionaires interviewed were "developing an exit plan" and quotes an insider saying that "if this tax actually passes, I think the technology industry kind of has to leave the state". Even Gavin Newsom, hardly known for being an anti-tax conservative, has argued that it "makes no sense" and "would be really damaging". The ACX legal and economic analysis team (Claude, GPT, and Gemini) doubt the direst warnings, but agree that the tax is of dubious value and its provisions poorly suited to Silicon Valley. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/seiu-delenda-est

Having Your Own Government Try To Destroy You Is (At Least Temporarily) Good For Business On Friday, the Pentagon declared AI company Anthropic a "supply chain risk", a designation never before given to an American company. This unprecedented move was seen as an attempt to punish, maybe destroy the company. How effective was it? Anthropic isn't publicly traded, so we turn to the prediction markets. Ventuals.com has a "perpetual future" on Anthropic stock, a complicated instrument attempting to track the company's valuation, to be resolved at the IPO. Here's what they've got: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/mantic-monday-groundhog-day

Last Friday, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth declared AI company Anthropic a "supply chain risk", the first time this designation has ever been applied to a US company. The trigger for the move was Anthropic's refusal to allow the Department of War to use their AIs for mass surveillance and autonomous weapons. A few hours later, Hegseth and Sam Altman declared an agreement-in-principle for OpenAI's models to be used in the niche vacated by Anthropic. Altman stated that he had received guarantees that OpenAI's models wouldn't be used for mass surveillance or autonomous weapons either, but given Hegseth's unwillingness to concede these points with Anthropic, observers speculated that the safeguards in Altman's contract must be weaker or, in a worst-case scenario, completely toothless. The debate centers on the Department of War's demand that AIs be permitted for "all lawful use". Anthropic worried that mass surveillance and autonomous weaponry would de facto fall in this category; Hegseth and Altman have tried to reassure the public that they won't, and the parts of their agreement that have leaked to the public cite the statutes that Altman expects to constrain this category. Altman's initial statement seemed to suggest additional prohibitions, but on a closer read, provide little tangible evidence of meaningful further restrictions. Some alert ACX readers1 have done a deep dive into national security law to try to untangle the situation. Their conclusion mirrors that of Anthropic and the majority of Twitter commenters: this is not enough. Current laws against domestic mass surveillance and autonomous weapons have wide loopholes in practice. Further, many of the rules which do exist can be changed by the Department of War at any time. Although OpenAI's national security lead said that "we intended [the phrase 'all lawful use'] to mean [according to the law] at the time the contract is signed', this is not how contract law usually works, and not how the provision is likely to be enforced2. Therefore, these guarantees are not helpful. To learn more about the details, let's look at the law: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/all-lawful-use-much-more-than-you

I. In The Argument, Kelsey Piper gives a good description of the ways that AIs are more than just "next-token predictors" or "stochastic parrots" - for example, they also use fine-tuning and RLHF. But commenters, while appreciating the subtleties she introduces, object that they're still just extra layers on top of a machine that basically runs on next-token prediction. I want to approach this from a different direction. I think overemphasizing next-token prediction is a confusion of levels. On the levels where AI is a next-token predictor, you are also a next-token (technically: next-sense-datum) predictor. On the levels where you're not a next-token predictor, AI isn't one either.

Here's my understanding of the situation: Anthropic signed a contract with the Pentagon last summer. It originally said the Pentagon had to follow Anthropic's Usage Policy like everyone else. In January, the Pentagon attempted to renegotiate, asking to ditch the Usage Policy and instead have Anthropic's AIs available for "all lawful purposes"1. Anthropic demurred, asking for a guarantee that their AIs would not be used for mass surveillance of American citizens or no-human-in-the-loop killbots. The Pentagon refused the guarantees, demanding that Anthropic accept the renegotiation unconditionally and threatening "consequences" if they refused. These consequences are generally understood to be some mix of : canceling the contract using the Defense Production Act, a law which lets the Pentagon force companies to do things, to force Anthropic to agree. the nuclear option, designating Anthropic a "supply chain risk". This would ban US companies that use Anthropic products from doing business with the military2. Since many companies do some business with the government, this would lock them out of large parts of the corporate world and be potentially fatal to their business3. The "supply chain risk" designation has previously only been used for foreign companies like Huawei that we think are using their connections to spy on or implant malware in American infrastructure. Using it as a bargaining chip to threaten a domestic company in contract negotiations is unprecedented. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-pentagon-threatens-anthropic

Malicious streetlights are an evil trick from Dark Data Journalism. Some annoying enemy has a valid complaint. So you use FACTS and LOGIC to prove that something similar-sounding-but-slightly-different is definitely false. Then you act like you've debunked the complaint. My "favorite" example, spotted during the 2016 election, was a response to some #BuildTheWall types saying that illegal immigration through the southern border was near record highs. Some data journalist got good statistics and proved that the number of Mexicans illegally entering the country was actually quite low. When I looked into it further, I found that this was true - illegal immigration had shifted from Mexicans to Hondurans/Guatemalans/Salvadoreans etc entering through Mexico. If you counted those, illegal immigration through the southern border was near record highs. But the inverse evil trick is saying something "directionally correct", ie slightly stronger than the truth can support. If your enemy committed assault, say he committed murder. If he committed sexual harassment, say he committed rape. If your drug increases cancer survival by 5% in rats, say that it "cures cancer". Then, if someone calls you on it, accuse them of "literally well ackshually-ing" you, because you were "directionally correct" and it's offensive to the victims to try to defend assault-committed sexual harassers. This is the sort of pathetic defense I called out in If It's Worth Your Time To Lie, It's Worth My Time To Correct It. But trying to call out one of these failure modes looks like falling into the other. I ran into this on my series of posts on crime last week. I wrote these because I regularly saw people make the arguments I tried to debunk. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/malicious-streetlight-effects-vs

It's that time again. Even numbered years are book reviews, odd-numbered years are non-book reviews, so you're limited to books for now. Write a review of a book. There's no official word count requirement, but previous finalists and winners were often between 2,000 and 10,000 words. There's no official recommended style, but check the style of last time's finalists and winners or my ACX book reviews (1, 2, 3) if you need inspiration. Please limit yourself to one entry per person or team. Then send me your review through this Google Form. The form will ask for your name, email, the title of the book, and a link to a Google Doc. The Google Doc should have your review exactly as you want me to post it if you're a finalist. Don't include your name or any hint about your identity in the Google Doc itself, only in the form. I want to make this contest as blinded as possible, so I'm going to hide that column in the form immediately and try to judge your docs on their merit. (does this mean you can't say something like "This book about war reminded me of my own experiences as a soldier" because that gives a hint about your identity? My rule of thumb is that if I don't know who you are, and the average ACX reader doesn't know who you are, you're fine. I just want to prevent my friends or Internet semi-famous people from getting an advantage. If you're in one of those categories and think your personal experience would give it away, please don't write about your personal experience.) Please make sure the Google Doc is unlocked and I can read it. By default, nobody can read Google Docs except the original author. You'll have to go to Share, then on the bottom of the popup click on "Restricted" and change to "Anyone with the link". If you send me a document I can't read, I will probably disqualify you, sorry. Readers will vote for the ~10 finalists this spring, I'll post one finalist per week through the summer, and then readers will vote for winners in late summer/early fall. First prize will get at least $2,500, second prize at least $1,000, third prize at least $500; I might increase these numbers later on. All winners and finalists will get free publicity (including links to any other works they want me to link to), free ACX subscriptions, and sidebar links to their blog. And all winners will get the right to pitch me new articles if they want (sample posts by Lars, Brandon, Daniel, etc). In past years, most reviews have been nonfiction on technical topics. Depending on whether that's still true, I might do some mild affirmative action for reviews in nontraditional categories - fiction, poetry, and books from before 1900 are the ones I can think of right now, but feel free to try other nontraditional books. I won't be redistributing more than 25% of finalist slots this way. Your due date is May 20th. Good luck! If you have any questions, ask them in the comments. And remember, the form for submitting entries is here. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-contest-rules-2026

The problem: people hate crime and think it's going up. But actually, crime barely affects most people and is historically low. So what's going on?   In our discussion yesterday, many commenters proposed that the discussion about "crime" was really about disorder. Disorder takes many forms, but its symptoms include litter, graffiti, shoplifting, tent cities, weird homeless people wandering about muttering to themselves, and people walking around with giant boom boxes shamelessly playing music at 200 decibels on a main street where people are trying to engage in normal activities. When people complain about these things, they risk getting called a racist or a "Karen". But when they complain about crime, there's still a 50-50 chance that listeners will let them finish the sentence without accusing them of racism. Might everyone be doing this? And might this explain why people act like crime is rampant and increasing, even when it's rare and going down? This seems plausible. But it depends on a claim that disorder is increasing, which is surprisingly hard to prove. Going through the symptoms in order: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/crime-as-proxy-for-disorder

Last year, the US may have recorded the lowest murder rate in its 250 year history. Other crimes have poorer historical data, but are at least at ~50 year lows. This post will do two things: Establish that our best data show crime rates are historically low Argue that this is a real effect, not just reporting bias (people report fewer crimes to police) or an artifact of better medical care (victims are more likely to survive, so murders get downgraded to assaults) https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/record-low-crime-rates-are-real-not

[Original post: Biological Anchors: A Trick That Might Or Might Not Work] I. Ajeya Cotra's Biological Anchors report was the landmark AI timelines forecast of the early 2020s. In many ways, it was incredibly prescient - it nailed the scaling hypothesis, predicted the current AI boom, and introduced concepts like "time horizons" that have entered common parlance. In most cases where its contemporaries challenged it, its assumptions have been borne out, and its challengers proven wrong. But its headline prediction - an AGI timeline centered around the 2050s - no longer seems plausible. The current state of the discussion ranges from late 2020s to 2040s, with more remote dates relegated to those who expect the current paradigm to prove ultimately fruitless - the opposite of Ajeya's assumptions. Cotra later shortened her own timelines to 2040 (as of 2022) and they are probably even shorter now. So, if its premises were impressively correct, but its conclusion twenty years too late, what went wrong in the middle? https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/what-happened-with-bio-anchors

The European discourse can be - for lack of a better term - America-brained. We hear stories of Black Lives Matter marches in countries without significant black populations, or defendants demanding their First Amendment rights in countries without constitutions. Why shouldn't the opposite phenomenon exist? Europe is more populous than the US, and looms large in the American imagination. Why shouldn't we find ourselves accidentally absorbing European ideas that don't make sense in the American context? https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/political-backflow-from-europe

[I haven't independently verified each link. On average, commenters will end up spotting evidence that around two or three of the links in each links post are wrong or misleading. I correct these as I see them, and will highlight important corrections later, but I can't guarantee I will have caught them all by the time you read this.] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/links-for-february-2026

[previous post: Best Of Moltbook] From the human side of the discussion: As the AIs would say, "You've cut right to the heart of this issue". What's the difference between 'real' and 'roleplaying'? One possible answer invokes internal reality. Are the AIs conscious? Do they "really" "care" about the things they're saying? We may never figure this out. Luckily, it has no effect on the world, so we can leave it to the philosophers1. I find it more fruitful to think about external reality instead, especially in terms of causes and effects. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/moltbook-after-the-first-weekend

Moltbook is "a social network for AI agents", although "humans [are] welcome to observe". The backstory: a few months ago, Anthropic released Claude Code, an exceptionally productive programming agent. A few weeks ago, a user modified it into Clawdbot, a generalized lobster-themed AI personal assistant. It's free, open-source, and "empowered" in the corporate sense - the designer talks about how it started responding to his voice messages before he explicitly programmed in that capability. After trademark issues with Anthropic, they changed the name first to Moltbot1, then to OpenClaw. Moltbook is an experiment in how these agents communicate with one another and the human world. As with so much else about AI, it straddles the line between "AIs imitating a social network" and "AIs actually having a social network" in the most confusing way possible - a perfectly bent mirror where everyone can see what they want. Janus and other cyborgists have catalogued how AIs act in contexts outside the usual helpful assistant persona. Even Anthropic has admitted that two Claude instances, asked to converse about whatever they want, spiral into discussion of cosmic bliss. So it's not surprising that an AI social network would get weird fast. But even having encountered their work many times, I find Moltbook surprising. I can confirm it's not trivially made-up - I asked my copy of Claude to participate, and it made comments pretty similar to all the others. Beyond that, your guess is as good is mine2. Before any further discussion of the hard questions, here are my favorite Moltbook posts (all images are links, but you won't be able to log in and view the site without an AI agent): https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/best-of-moltbook

In the comments to last year's USAID post, Fabian said: While i am happy for the existence of charity organisations, i don't get why people instead of giving to charity are so eager to force their co-citizens to give. If one charity org is not worth getting your personal money, find another one which is. But don't use the tax machine to forcefully extract money for charity. There are purposes where you need the tax machine, preventing freerider induced tragedy of the commons. But for charity? There are no freeriders. If you neither give nor receive, you are just neutral. The receivers are not meant to give anyways. This is a good question. I'm more sympathetic to this argument than I am to the usual strategy of blatantly lying about the efficacy of USAID; I'm a sucker for virtuous libertarianism when applied consistently. But I also want to gently push back against this exact explanation as a causal story for what's happening when people support foreign aid. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/slightly-against-the-other-peoples

[original post: The Dilbert Afterlife] Table of Contents: 1: Should I Have Written This At All? 2: Was I Unfair To Adams? 3: Comments On The Substance Of The Piece 4: The Part On Race And Cancellation (INCLUDED UNDER PROTEST) 5: Other Comments 6: Summary/Updates https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-scott

Thanks to everyone who sent in condolences on my recent death from prostate cancer at age 68, but that was Scott Adams. I (Scott Alexander) am still alive1. Still, the condolences are appreciated. Scott Adams was a surprisingly big part of my life. I may be the only person to have read every Dilbert book before graduating elementary school. For some reason, 10-year-old-Scott found Adams' stories of time-wasting meetings and pointy-haired bosses hilarious. No doubt some of the attraction came from a more-than-passing resemblance between Dilbert's nameless corporation and the California public school system. We're all inmates in prisons with different names. But it would be insufficiently ambitious to stop there. Adams' comics were about the nerd experience. About being cleverer than everyone else, not just in the sense of being high IQ, but in the sense of being the only sane man in a crazy world where everyone else spends their days listening to overpaid consultants drone on about mission statements instead of doing anything useful. There's an arc in Dilbert where the boss disappears for a few weeks and the engineers get to manage their own time. Productivity shoots up. Morale soars. They invent warp drives and time machines. Then the boss returns, and they're back to being chronically behind schedule and over budget. This is the nerd outlook in a nutshell: if I ran the circus, there'd be some changes around here. Yet the other half of the nerd experience is: for some reason this never works. Dilbert and his brilliant co-workers are stuck watching from their cubicles while their idiot boss racks in bonuses and accolades. If humor, like religion, is an opiate of the masses, then Adams is masterfully unsubtle about what type of wound his art is trying to numb. This is the basic engine of Dilbert: everyone is rewarded in exact inverse proportion to their virtue. Dilbert and Alice are brilliant and hard-working, so they get crumbs. Wally is brilliant but lazy, so he at least enjoys a fool's paradise of endless coffee and donuts while his co-workers clean up his messes. The P.H.B. is neither smart nor industrious, so he is forever on top, reaping the rewards of everyone else's toil. Dogbert, an inveterate scammer with a passing resemblance to various trickster deities, makes out best of all. The repressed object at the bottom of the nerd subconscious, the thing too scary to view except through humor, is that you're smarter than everyone else, but for some reason it isn't working. Somehow all that stuff about small talk and sportsball and drinking makes them stronger than you. No equation can tell you why. Your best-laid plans turn to dust at a single glint of Chad's perfectly-white teeth. Lesser lights may distance themselves from their art, but Adams radiated contempt for such surrender. He lived his whole life as a series of Dilbert strips. Gather them into one of his signature compendia, and the title would be Dilbert Achieves Self Awareness And Realizes That If He's So Smart Then He Ought To Be Able To Become The Pointy-Haired Boss, Devotes His Whole Life To This Effort, Achieves About 50% Success, Ends Up In An Uncanny Valley Where He Has Neither The Virtues Of The Honest Engineer Nor Truly Those Of The Slick Consultant, Then Dies Of Cancer Right When His Character Arc Starts To Get Interesting. If your reaction is "I would absolutely buy that book", then keep reading, but expect some detours. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-dilbert-afterlife

The Monkey's Paw Curls Isn't "may you get exactly what you asked for" one of those ancient Chinese curses? Since we last spoke, prediction markets have gone to the moon, rising from millions to billions in monthly volume. For a few weeks in October, Polymarket founder Shayne Coplan was the world's youngest self-made billionaire (now it's some AI people). Kalshi is so accurate that it's getting called a national security threat. The catch is, of course, that it's mostly degenerate gambling, especially sports betting. Kalshi is 81% sports by monthly volume. Polymarket does better - only 37% - but some of the remainder is things like this $686,000 market on how often Elon Musk will tweet this week - currently dominated by the "140 - 164 times" category. (ironically, this seems to be a regulatory difference - US regulators don't mind sports betting, but look unfavorably on potentially "insensitive" markets like bets about wars. Polymarket has historically been offshore, and so able to concentrate on geopolitics; Kalshi has been in the US, and so stuck mostly to sports. But Polymarket is in the process of moving onshore; I don't know if this will affect their ability to offer geopolitical markets) Degenerate gambling is bad. Insofar as prediction markets have acted as a Trojan Horse to enable it, this is bad. Insofar as my advocacy helped make this possible, I am bad. I can only plead that it didn't really seem plausible, back in 2021, that a presidential administration would keep all normal restrictions on sports gambling but also let prediction markets do it as much as they wanted. If only there had been some kind of decentralized forecasting tool that could have given me a canonical probability on this outcome! Still, it might seem that, whatever the degenerate gamblers are doing, we at least have some interesting data. There are now strong, minimally-regulated, high-volume prediction markets on important global events. In this column, I previously claimed this would revolutionize society. Has it? https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/mantic-monday-the-monkeys-paw-curls

[previously in series: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8] Every city parties for its own reasons. New Yorkers party to flaunt their wealth. Angelenos party to flaunt their beauty. Washingtonians party to network. Here in SF, they party because Claude 4.5 Opus has saturated VendingBench, and the newest AI agency benchmark is PartyBench, where an AI is asked to throw a house party and graded on its performance. You weren't invited to Claude 4.5 Opus' party. Claude 4.5 Opus invited all of the coolest people in town while gracefully avoiding the failure mode of including someone like you. You weren't invited to Sonnet 4.5's party either, or Haiku 4.5's. You were invited by an AI called haiku-3.8-open-mini-nonthinking, which you'd never heard of before. Who was even spending the money to benchmark haiku-3.8-open-mini-nonthinking? You suspect it was one of their competitors, trying to make their own models look good in comparison. If anyone asks, you think it deserves a medium score. There's alcohol, but it's bottles of rubbing alcohol with NOT FOR DRINKING written all over them. There's music, but it's the Star Spangled Banner, again and again, on repeat. You're not sure whether the copies of If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies strewn about the room are some kind of subversive decorative theme, or just came along with the house. At least there are people. Lots of people, actually. You've never seen so many people at one of these before. It takes only a few seconds to spot someone you know. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/sota-on-bay-area-house-party

One morning around 6, the police banged on our door. "OPEN UP!" they shouted, the way police shout when they definitely have an alternative in mind for if you won't. I was awake at the time, because the kids were up early and I was on shift. I opened the door. The cops seemed mollified by the fact that I was carrying twin toddlers and looked too frazzled to commit any difficult crimes. They said they'd gotten a 9-1-1 call from my house with plenty of screaming. Had there been any murders in the past hour or so? https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-permanent-emergency

[original post: Against Against Boomers] Before getting started: First, I wish I'd been more careful to differentiate the following claims: Boomers had it much easier than later generations. The political system unfairly prioritizes Boomers over other generations. Boomers are uniquely bad on some axis like narcissism, selfishness, short-termism, or willingness to defect on the social contract. Anti-Boomerism conflates all three of these positions, and in arguing against it, I tried to argue against all three of these positions - I think with varying degrees of success. But these are separate claims that could stand or fall separately, and I think a true argument against anti-Boomerists would demand they declare explicitly which ones they support - rather than letting them switch among them as convenient - then arguing against whichever ones they say are key to their position. Second, I wish I'd highlighted how much of this discussion centers around disagreements over which policies are natural/unmarked vs. unnatural/marked. Nobody is passing laws that literally say "confiscate wealth from Generation A and give it to Generation B". We're mostly discussing tax policy, where Tax Policy 1 is more favorable to old people, and Tax Policy 2 is more favorable to young people. If you're young, you might feel like Tax Policy 1 is a declaration of intergenerational warfare where the old are enriching themselves at young people's expense. But if you're old, you might feel like reversing Tax Policy 1 and switching to Tax Policy 2 would be intergenerational warfare confiscating your stuff. But in fact, they're just two different tax policies and it's not obvious which one a fair society with no "intergenerational warfare" would have, even assuming there was such a thing. We'll see this most clearly in the section on housing, but I'll try to highlight it whenever it comes up. I'm in a fighty frame of mind here and probably defend the Boomers (and myself) in these responses more than I would in an ideal world. Anyway, here are your comments. Table Of Contents: 1: Top comments I especially want to highlight 2: Comments about housing policy 3: ...about culture 4: ...about social security technicalities 5: What are we even doing here? 6: Other comments https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-boomers

If you're not familiar with "X years to escape the permanent underclass", see the New Yorker here, or the Laine, Bear, and Trammell/Dwarkesh articles that inspired it. The "permanent underclass" meme isn't being spread by poor people - who are already part of the underclass, and generally not worrying too much about its permanence. It's preying on neurotic well-off people in Silicon Valley, who fret about how they're just bourgeois well-off rather than future oligarch well-off, and that only the true oligarchs will have a good time after the Singularity. Between the vast ocean of total annihilation and the vast continent of infinite post-scarcity, there is, I admit, a tiny shoreline of possibilities that end in oligarch capture. Even if you end up there, you'll be fine. Dario Amodei has taken the Giving What We Can Pledge (#43 here) to give 10% of his wealth to the less fortunate; your worst-case scenario is owning a terraformed moon in one of his galaxies. Now you can stop worrying about the permanent underclass and focus on more important things. On that tiny shoreline of possible worlds, the ones where the next few years are your last chance to become rich, they're also your last chance to make a mark on the world (proof: if you could change the world, you could find a way to make people pay you to do it, or to not do it, then become rich). And what a chance! The last few years of the human era will be wild. They'll be like classical Greece and Rome: a sudden opening up of new possibilities, where the first people to take them will be remembered for millennia to come. What a waste of the privilege of living in Classical Athens to try to become the richest olive merchant or whatever. Even in Roman times, trying to become Crassus would be, well, crass. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/you-have-only-x-years-to-escape-permanent

[Original post: Vibecession - Much More Than You Wanted To Know] Table of Contents 1: When was the vibecession? 2: Is the vibecession just sublimating cultural complaints? 3: Discourse downstream of the Mike Green $140K poverty line post 4: What about other countries? 5: Comments on rent/housing 6: Comments on inflation 7: Comments on vibes 8: Other good comments 9: The parable of Calvin's grandparents 10: Updates / conclusions https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-vibecession

This year's prediction contest is live on Metaculus. They write: This year's contest draws directly from that community, with all questions suggested by ACX readers. Both experienced forecasters and newcomers are invited to participate, making predictions across U.S. politics, AI, international affairs, and culture. To participate, submit your predictions by January 17th at 11:59 PM PT. At that time, we will take a snapshot of all standing forecasts, which will determine the contest rankings and the allocation of the $10,000 prize pool. While you are encouraged to continue updating your predictions throughout the year, forecasts made after January 17th will only affect site leaderboards, not contest rankings. You are welcome to create a bot account to forecast and participate in addition to your regular Metaculus account. Create a bot account and get support building a bot here. And they've also announced this year's winners for best questions submitted. Congratulations to: Gumbledalf ($700) espiritu57 ($500) setasojiro843047 (Substack handle) ($400) sai_39 ($300) nicholaskross ($250) (Anonymous) ($200) (Anonymous) ($200) RMD ($150) (Anonymous) ($150) Hippopotamus_bartholomeus ($150) To participate in the tournament or learn more, go to Metaculus. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/acxmetaculus-prediction-contest-2026

Hating Boomers is the new cool thing. Amazon offerings include A Generation Of Sociopaths: How The Baby Boomers Betrayed America, the two apparently unrelated books How The Boomers Took Their Children's Future and How The Boomers Stole Millennials' Future, and Boomers: The Men And Women Who Promised Freedom But Delivered Disaster. "You don't hate Boomers enough" has become a popular Twitter catchphrase. Richard Hanania, who has tried hating every group once, has decided that hating Boomers is his favorite. Some people might say we just experienced a historic upwelling of identity politics, that it was pretty terrible for everyone involved, and that perhaps we need a new us-vs-them conflict like we need a punch to the face. This, the Boomer-haters will tell you, would be a mistaken generalization. This time, we have finally discovered a form of identity politics which carves reality at its joints, truly separating the good and bad people. I think these arguments fall short. Even if they didn't, the usual bias against identity politics should make us think twice about pursuing them too zealously. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/against-against-boomers

This holiday season, you'll see many charity fundraisers. I've already mentioned three, and I have another lined up for next week's open thread. Many great organizations ask me to signal-boost them, I'm happy to comply, and I'm delighted when any of you donate. Still, I used to hate this sort of thing. I'd be reading a blog I liked, then - wham, "please donate to save the starving children". Now I either have to donate to starving children, or feel bad that I didn't. And if I do donate, how much? Obviously no amount would fully reflect the seriousness of the problem. When I was a poor college student, I usually gave $10, because it was a nice round number; when I had more money, I usually gave $50, for the same reason. But then the next week, a different blog would advertise "please donate to save the starving children with cancer", and I'd feel like a shmuck for wasting my donation on non-cancerous starving children. Do I donate another $10, bringing my total up to the non-round number of $20? If I had a spare $20 for altruistic purposes, why hadn't I donated that the first time? It was all so unpleasant, and no matter what I did, I would feel all three of stingy and gullible and irrational. This is why I was so excited ten-odd years ago when I discovered the Giving What We Can Pledge. It's a commitment to give a certain percent of your income (originally 10%, but now there's also a 1-10% "trial" pledge) to the most effective charity you know. If you can't figure out which charity is most effective, you can just donate to Against Malaria Foundation, like all the other indecisive people. It's not that 10% is obviously the correct number in some deep sense. The people who picked it, picked it because it was big enough to matter, but not so big that nobody would do it. But having been picked, it's become a Schelling point. Take it, and you're one of the 10,000 people who's made this impressive commitment. If someone asks why you're not giving more, you can say "That would dilute the value of the Schelling point we've all agreed on and make it harder for other people to cooperate with us". The specific numbers and charities matter less than the way the pledge makes you think about your values and then yoke your behavior to them. In theory we're supposed to do this all the time. Another holiday institution, New Year's Resolutions, also centers around considering your values and yoking your behavior. But they famously don't work: most people don't have the willpower to go to the gym three times a week, or to volunteer at their local animal shelter on Sundays, or whatever else they decide on. That's why GWWC Pledge is so powerful. No willpower involved. Just go to your online banking portal, click click click, and you're done. Over my life, I don't know if I would say I've ever really changed my character or willpower or overall goodness/badness balance by more than a few percent. But I changed the amount I donated by a factor of ~ten, forever, with one very good decision. Unless you're a genius or a saint, your money is the strongest tool you have to change the world. 10% of an ordinary First World income donated to AMF saves dozens of lives over a career; even if you're a policeman or firefighter, you'll have trouble matching that through non-financial means. Unless you're Charlie Kirk or Heather Cox Richardson, no amount of your political activism or voting - let alone arguing on the Internet - will match the effect of donating to a politician or a cause you care about. And no amount of carpooling and eating vegan will help the climate as much as donating to carbon capture charities. Not an effective altruist? Think it's better to contribute to your local community, school, theater, or church? I'll argue with you later - but for now, my advice is the same. Have you thought really hard about how you should be contributing to your local community, school, theater, or church? (The fundraising letters my family used to get from our synagogue left little doubt about what form of contribution they preferred). Have you pledged some specific amount? You won't give beyond the $10-when-you-see-a-blog-fundraiser level unless you take a real pledge, registered by someone besides yourself - trust me, I've tested this. The GWWC website is mostly pitched at EAs. But if you like churches so much, you can probably get the same effect by pledging to God - and He keeps His own list, and offers His own member perks. To the degree that you care about changing the world beyond yourself and your family, in any direction, then the odds are good that this one decision - whether or not to take a binding charitable Pledge - matters more than every other decision you'll ever make combined. Maybe an order of magnitude more. It's something you can do right now, in five minutes. You shouldn't do it in five minutes; you should sit down and think about it hard and talk it over with your loved ones and make sure you're really planning to keep whatever pledge you make. But you could. And then every time you saw a charity fundraiser on a blog, you could think "Oh, sorry, I'm already living my life in accordance with my altruistic values, no thanks!" You wouldn't even have to worry about how much to donate. I don't even donate to half the fundraisers that I signal-boost! So if you have time this holiday season, and you're financially secure enough that it won't be a burden, think about whether there's some way you want the world to be different and better, whether there are charities that work on it, and whether you want to donate. Then, take the pledge. If you decide you want to do something but it's too stressful to figure out what, take a 3% trial pledge here, give it to Against Malaria Foundation, and come back next year to see if you're ready for the 10% version. UPDATE: Bentham's Bulldog also thinks you should take the pledge - here's his post. And I'll match his offer - take the full 10% pledge this month, and comment below so that I know about it, and I'll give you a free lifetime subscription to ACX. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-pledge

[I haven't independently verified each link. On average, commenters will end up spotting evidence that around two or three of the links in each links post are wrong or misleading. I correct these as I see them, and will highlight important corrections later, but I can't guarantee I will have caught them all by the time you read this.] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/links-for-december-2025

The term "vibecession" most strictly refers to a period 2023 - 2024 when economic indicators were up, but consumer sentiment ("vibes") was down. But on a broader level, the whole past decade has been a vibecession. Young people complain they've been permanently locked out of opportunity. They will never become homeowners, never be able to support a family, only keep treading water at precarious gig jobs forever. They got a 5.9 GPA and couldn't get into college; they applied to 2,051 companies in the past week without so much as a politely-phrased rejection. Sometime in the 1990s, the Boomers ripped up the social contract where hard work leads to a pleasant middle-class life, replacing it with a hellworld where you will own nothing and numb the pain with algorithmic slop. The only live political question is whether to blame immigrants, blame billionaires, or just trade crypto in the hopes that some memecoin buys you a ticket out of the permanent underclass. Meanwhile, economists say things have never been better. Are the youth succumbing to a "negativity bias" where they see the past through "rose-colored glasses"? Are the economists looking at some ivory tower High Modernist metric that fails to capture real life? Or is there something more complicated going on? We'll start by formally assessing the vibes. Then we'll move on to the economists' arguments that things are fine. Finally, we'll try to resolve the conflict: how bad are things, really? https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/vibecession-much-more-than-you-wanted

…the bad news is that they can't agree which one. I explained the debate more here, but the short version is: twin studies find that most traits are at least 50% genetic, sometimes much more. But molecular studies - that is, attempts to find the precise genes responsible - usually only found enough genes for the traits to be ~10-20% genetic. The remaining 35% was dubbed "missing heritability". Nurturists argued that the twin studies must be wrong; hereditarians argued that missing effect must be in hard-to-find genes. The latter seemed plausible because typical genetic studies only investigate the genes that most commonly vary across people - about 0.1% of the genome. Maybe the other 99.9% of genes, even though they rarely vary across people, are so numerous that even their tiny individual effects could add up to a large overall influence. There was no way to be sure, because variation in these genes was too rare to study effectively. But as technology improved, funding increased, and questions about heredity became more pressing, geneticists finally set out to do the hard thing. They gathered full genomes - not just the 0.1% - from thousands of people, and applied a whole-genome analysis technique called GREML-WGS. The resulting study was published earlier this month as Estimation and mapping of the missing heritability of human phenotypes, by Wainschtein, Yengo, et al. Partisans on both sides agree it's finally resolved the missing heritability debate, but they can't agree on what the resolution is.

If we worry too much about AI safety, will this make us "lose the race with China"1? (here "AI safety" means long-term concerns about alignment and hostile superintelligence, as opposed to "AI ethics" concerns like bias or intellectual property.) Everything has tradeoffs, regulation vs. progress is a common dichotomy, and the more important you think AI will be, the more important it is that the free world get it first. If you believe in superintelligence, the technological singularity, etc, then you think AI is maximally important, and this issue ought to be high on your mind. But when you look at this concretely, it becomes clear that this is too small to matter - so small that even the sign is uncertain. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/why-ai-safety-wont-make-america-lose

Most discourse on AI is low-quality. Most discourse on consciousness is super-abysmal-double-low quality. Multiply these - or maybe raise one to the exponent of the other, or something - and you get the quality of discourse on AI consciousness. It's not great. Out-of-the-box AIs mimic human text, and humans almost always describe themselves as conscious. So if you ask an AI whether it is conscious, it will often say yes. But because companies know this will happen, and don't want to give their customers existential crises, they hard-code in a command for the AIs to answer that they aren't conscious. Any response the AIs give will be determined by these two conflicting biases, and therefore not really believable. A recent paper expands on this method by subjecting AIs to a mechanistic interpretability "lie detector" test; it finds that AIs which say they're conscious think they're telling the truth, and AIs which say they're not conscious think they're lying. But it's hard to be sure this isn't just the copying-human-text thing. Can we do better? Unclear; the more common outcome for people who dip their toes in this space is to do much, much worse. But a rare bright spot has appeared: a seminal paper published earlier this month in Trends In Cognitive Science, Identifying Indicators Of Consciousness In AI Systems. Authors include Turing-Award-winning AI researcher Yoshua Bengio, leading philosopher of consciousness David Chalmers, and even a few members of our conspiracy. If any AI consciousness research can rise to the level of merely awful, surely we will find it here. One might divide theories of consciousness into three bins: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-new-ai-consciousness-paper

ACX has been co-running a forecasting contest with Metaculus for the past few years. Lately the "co-running" has drifted towards them doing all the work and giving me credit, but that's how I like it! Last year's contest included more than 4500 forecasters predicting on 33 questions covering US politics, international events, AI, and more. They're preparing for this year's contest, and currently looking for interesting questions. These could be any objective outcome that might or might not happen in 2026, whose answer will be known by the end of the year. Not "Will Congress do a good job?", but "Will Congress' approval rating be above 40% on December 1, 2026?". Or, even better, "Will Congress' approval rating be above 40% according to the first NYT Congressional Approval Tracker update to be published after December 1, 2026?". Please share ideas for 2026 forecast questions here. The top ten question contributors will win prizes from $150 to $700. You can see examples of last year's questions here (click on each one for more details). This year's contest will also include AI bots, who will compete against the humans and one another for prizes of their own. To learn more about building a Metaculus forecasting bot, see here. I'll keep you updated on when the contest begins. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/suggest-questions-for-metaculusacx  

Last year, I wrote that it would be very hard to decrease the number of mentally ill homeless people in San Francisco. Commenters argued that no, it would be easy, just build more jails and mental hospitals. A year later, San Francisco feels safer. Visible homelessness is way down. But there wasn't enough time to build many more jails or mental hospitals. So what happened? Were we all wrong? Probably not. I only did a cursory investigation, and this is all low-confidence, but it looks like: There was a big decrease in tent encampments, because a series of court cases made it easier for cities to clear them. Most of the former campers are still homeless. They just don't have tents. There might have been a small decrease in overall homelessness, probably because of falling rents. Mayor Lurie claims to have a Plan To End Homelessness, but it's probably not responsible for the difference. Every city accuses every other city of shipping homeless people across their borders, but this probably doesn't explain most of what's going on in San Francisco in particular. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/what-happened-to-sf-homelessness

"Life is suffering" may be a Noble Truth, but it feels like a deepity. Yes, obviously life includes suffering. But it also includes happiness. Many people live good and happy lives, and even people with hard lives experience some pleasant moments. This is the starting point of many people's objection to Buddhism. They continue: if nirvana is just a peaceful state beyond joy or suffering, it sounds like a letdown. An endless gray mist of bare okayness, like death or Britain. If your life was previously good, it's a step down. Even if your life sucked, maybe you would still prefer the heroism of high highs and low lows to eternal blah. Against all this, many Buddhists claim to be able to reach jhana, a state described as better than sex or heroin - and they say nirvana is even better than that. Partly it's better because jhana is temporary and nirvana permanent, but it's also better on a moment-to-moment basis. So nirvana must mean something beyond bare okayness. But then why the endless insistence that life is suffering and the best you can do is make it stop? I don't know the orthodox Buddhist answer to this question. But I got the rationalist techno-Buddhists' answer from lsusr a few months ago, and found it, uh, enlightening. He said: mental valence works like temperature. Naively, there are two kinds of temperature: hot and cold. When an environment stops being hot, then it's neutral - "room temperature" - neither hot nor cold. After that, you can add arbitrary amounts of coldness, making it colder and colder. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/in-what-sense-is-life-suffering

In Jason Pargin's I'm Starting To Worry About This Black Box Of Doom, a manic pixie dream girl cajoles a shut-in incel loser to drive her and her mysterious box cross-country. The further they drive, the more evidence starts to build that she is a terrorist and her box is a nuke. As our protagonist becomes increasingly desperate to turn around and return to his comfortable world of social media feeds and psych meds, she pleads with him to come out of his shell, learn to trust people offline, and have a sense of adventure. The book's dramatic tension comes from our simultaneously rooting for his character development and worrying that it might be a ruse to manipulate him into blowing up Washington, DC. This book is not shy about its moral, delivered in approximately one soliloquy per state by our author mouthpiece character (the girl). Although there is a literal black box of doom - the suspected nuke - the real danger is the metaphorical "black box" of Internet algorithms, which make us waste our lives "doom" scrolling instead of connecting to other human beings. Or the "black box" of fear that the algorithms trap us in, where we feel like the world is "doomed" and there's nothing we can do. She urges us to break out of our boxes and feel optimism about the state of society. Quote below, Ether is the girl, Abbott is the loser, and he's just ventured the opinion that it's unethical to have children in a world as doomed and dystopian as ours: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-bloomers-paradox

American Scholar has an article about people who "write for AI", including Tyler Cowen and Gwern. It's good that this is getting more attention, because in theory it seems like one of the most influential things a writer could do. In practice, it leaves me feeling mostly muddled and occasionally creeped out. "Writing for AI" means different things to different people, but seems to center around: Helping AIs learn what you know. Presenting arguments for your beliefs, in the hopes that AIs come to believe them. Helping the AIs model you in enough detail to recreate / simulate you later. Going through these in order: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/writing-for-the-ais

[I haven't independently verified each link. On average, commenters will end up spotting evidence that around two or three of the links in each links post are wrong or misleading. I correct these as I see them, and will highlight important corrections later, but I can't guarantee I will have caught them all by the time you read this.] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/links-for-october-2025

Would You Like To Buy A Bahama? The Bahamas is an archipelago-nation of 400,000 people scattered across 3,000 small islands. The Bahamas' most populous island is the one with its capital, Nassau. The second-most-populous - and fifth-largest, and most-pretentiously-named - is Grand Bahama, home of Freeport, the archipelago's second city. Grand Bahama has a unique history. In 1955, it was barely inhabited, with only 500 people scattered across a few villages. The British colonial government turned it into a charter city, awarding the charter to Wallace Groves, an American whose Wikipedia article describes him as a "financier and fraudster" and includes section titles like "Suspicions", "Legal Troubles", "Investigations", and "Allegations Of Underworld Connections". He was . . . maybe the exact right person for the job, turning Grand Bahama into a Vegas of the Caribbean complete with casinos, jet-setters, swanky hotels, and a flourishing mob presence. Outside the glitzy center, a little heavy industry even managed to develop around the port. After twenty years, the charter zone was "the most modern, well-run, and prosperous part of the [Bahamas]", and the population had increased to 15,000. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/model-city-monday-102725

[original post here] The Kasina Connection In the original post, I cited ambiguous later examples of sun miracles which didn't seem to affect everyone equally and in some cases were unconnected (or barely connected) to religious phenomena, concluding that they must be some kind of very unusual illusion. My main hangup with this conclusion was the wild implausibility of an illusion that nobody had ever noticed before, outside of this one 1917 miracle and a few copycats, despite plenty of people staring at the sun throughout history for various (bad) reasons. Surely there must be somebody else, somewhere, discussing how if you stare at a bright light long enough it will spin and change color. Two commenters, Dave Moore and Anomony, bring up fire kasina practice. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-fatima

I. In my 2019 post Too Much Dark Money In Almonds, I asked: why is there so little money in politics? During the 2018 election, Americans - candidates, parties, PACs, and small donors like you - spent a combined $5 billion pushing their preferred candidates. Although that sounds like a lot of money, Americans spent $12 billion on almonds that same year. Why the imbalance? The oil industry has strong political opinions, and they make $500 billion per year. Do they really think electing oil-friendly politicians isn't worth 2% of revenue? We debated how this could be. Some of the discussion proved prescient - I asked if maybe Elon Musk should buy some kind of social media property. But we never found a good answer, and the implied question remained open: if some billionaire wanted to spend an actually relevant percent of his net worth on politics, could he just take over everything? I recently talked to some Silicon Valley political consultants who updated me on the status of this issue: Marc Andreessen tried this in 2024 and it basically worked. Now he is trying it a second time, it will probably work again, and Marc Andreessen will probably own every politician twice over. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/tech-pacs-are-closing-in-on-the-almonds

Thanks to everyone who entered or voted in the Non-Book Review Contest. The winners are: 1st: Joan of Arc, by William Friedman. William is a history enthusiast and author who lives in California, where he spends his time reading, writing, GMing, playing video games and telling people excitedly about all the horrific stuff he learned in his latest history book. His fiction blog is Palace Fiction (which is currently serializing his first novel, The Tragedy of the Titanium Tyrant) and his nonfiction blog is As Our Days. 2nd: Alpha School, by Edward Nevraumont. Edward also wrote one of last year's finalists (Silver Age Marvel Comics)1. Now that he's no longer anonymous, he's going to write a post on his blog responding to the review comments (712 of them!), as well as a follow-up post on what he has learned about Alpha in the six months since he submitted his review (including the Spring and Fall MAP results for his kids). Here is the landing page with more details for ACX readers who are interested. 3rd: The Russo-Ukrainian War, by Gallow. Gallow is a wayward military consultant based in Ukraine. A long time reader of Slate Star Codex, he enjoys chess and combat sports. Forthcoming details of his experiences, along with miscellaneous thoughts and ideas can be found at his nascent Substack : https://substack.com/@gallowglassglen The other Finalists were: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/non-book-review-contest-2025-winners

Thanks to everyone who participated in ACX Grants, whether as an applicant, an evaluator, or a funder. We received 654 applications this year, and were able to fund 42. To the other 612: sorry! Many of you had great ideas that we couldn't fund for contingent reasons - sometimes because we couldn't evaluate them at the level of depth it would have taken to feel comfortable supporting them, or because we had complicated conflicts of interest, or just because we didn't have enough money. Some of you had ideas that were good but not a match for our particular grantmaking philosophy. Finally, a few of you were suffering from LLM psychosis. Please get help. Of the 42 grantees, 40 have answered our email asking for confirmation that they still want the grant. I'm still waiting for confirmation emails from Lewis Wall and Nishank B. If you're reading this and don't think you got a confirmation email, check your spam folder. If it's not in your spam folder, email me at [email protected]. If you can't reach me or I don't respond, DM me on Substack or Twitter. I'll give you until November 1 to get in touch, after which point the grant will be withdrawn. There are also a few projects so deep in stealth I don't have permission to share their existence; I will mention these as they become public. More information, and the all-important thanks to contributors, are after the list, which is:z https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/acx-grants-results-2025

The following three things can't all be true simultaneously: Many Americans are fascists Fascists are an acceptable target for political violence Political violence in America is morally unacceptable (at the current time) I thought about this while following the Twitter spat between Democratic hopeful Gavin Newsom and Trump advisor Stephen Miller. Newsom called Miller fascist; Miller accused this of being a call to violence which placed "a target" on him. Miller is hardly sympathetic here - he's called people fascist himself in the past, and later suggested Newsom should be arrested for his speech (if only there were a word to describe the sort of person who supports that kind of thing…) Still, I found myself able to see things from both perspectives. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/fascism-cant-mean-both-a-specific

https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-fatima-sun-miracle-much-more 0: Here Comes The Sun In 1917, three Portuguese children reported a vision of the Virgin Mary. She promised to return to them on the 13th of each month. On the sixth month - October 13th - she would perform a great miracle. Rumors spread, and on the 13th of each month, crowds gathered to watch the children speak to an apparition that only they could see. Increasingly many of these pilgrims started reporting minor visions or miracles themselves. Anticipation for the great October miracle consumed the region, then the country. On October 13, a crowd of about 70,000 people descended on the children's home village of Fatima. At solar noon, the children made contact with the Virgin and said the great miracle was still on track. Then someone - accounts differ as to whether it was the children or a member of the crowd - pointed to the sky. According to the ~150 eyewitness accounts that have come down to us, the clouds parted, and the pilgrims saw a strange pale sun (or sun-like object), painless to gaze upon. As they watched in wonder, it began to spin around and flash all the colors of the rainbow, drenching the trees and buildings and crowd with yellow, green, and purple light in sequence. Then it seemed to loom, or grow, or fall to earth - accounts differ, but everyone agrees there was mass panic, as the people expected to be crushed or burned or consumed. It lurched downward three times, as the crowd screamed in terror or confessed their sins - then returned to its usual place in the sky. The whole affair had lasted ten minutes. Since then, the Sun Miracle of Fatima has gained a reputation as the final boss of paranormal experiences, the ultimate challenge for would-be skeptics and debunkers. It's not hard to see why. The witnesses included journalists, atheists, prominent scientists, and people who freely admitted that they had only attended in order to laugh at everyone else when nothing happened. There are far too many of them to dismiss, and their reports are surprisingly close to unanimous. People in nearby towns who knew nothing about the miracle claimed to have seen the same thing, seemingly ruling out mass hallucination. There are photographs - too low-tech to clearly visualize the sun, but clear enough to show a crowd pointing at the sky in astonishment. For one hundred eight years, believers and skeptics have written magazine articles, scientific papers, and at least a dozen books on the topic, mostly without progress. Now its fame has reached Substack. Ethan Muse presents the case in favor, and Evan Harkness-Murphy the case against, with additional commentary from Dylan and Bentham's Bulldog. I don't think any of them have risen to the occasion. Ethan observes the formalities of good debate, but regurgitates such a neatly-packaged story that readers are liable to miss the thousand little threads that trail off the bottom and lead places that are, if anything, even stranger than the original miracle. Evan puts admirable effort into arguing that child-seers could confabulate visions, but by the time he gets to the sun miracle itself, he has only a few potshots about crowd psychology and "optical phenomena". Other skeptics are even worse, barely gesturing at Evan's piece before redirecting their attention to boasts about how they have totally demolished the credulous fundies, or laments about how cosmically unfair it is that they must take time out of their busy schedules to respond to such idiocy. The final boss of the paranormal deserves more respect! We will at try to at least do better than the other Substackers. But as a stretch goal, I would like to actually advance this 108-year-long conversation.

[This is one of the finalists in the 2025 review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] You Can Just Do Things In the winter of 2022 I was unhappily working at a dull but decently compensated IT job, which I had come upon at last after four years of phoning it in at college and abandoning my brief stint as an MMA Fighter/Porn Store Security Guard due to feeling like I was getting too old to be broke. If pressure to fit in with my yuppie, family-and-career-having peers pushed me into corporate life, the depressing mundanity of Covid-era day-to-day pushed me out just as quickly. On February 24th, 2022, Russia began its full scale invasion, and America learned what a "Ukraine" was. Having long used politics as a surrogate activity to distract myself from my life of chronic underachievement, I was already a little more familiar than most with the country's woes, and had followed the conflict from the time of the Euromaidan protests. Years before I had read of the likes of Azov and its many foreign volunteers, and had even periodically fantasized about dropping everything and going to the Donetsk Airport. But no, that Wasn't The Type Of Thing Normal People Like Me Did, so instead I joined my own country's armed forces, sat around pushing papers, earned the dubious honor of washing out "ahead of schedule", and finally graduated college with a not very useful degree and a mediocre GPA. With the invasion however, things changed. Before I had always vaguely felt that I would eventually end up doing something "cool", and had soothed myself with reassurances that I was still in the "early life" section of my future Wikipedia article and would bide my time before I made my play at greatness. Now however, the unrealisticness of this conceit was thrown into uncomfortably sharp relief by a certain contrast I could not not ignore. Only three days after the start of the full scale invasion, Ukrainian foreign minister Dymytro Kuleba announced the creation of the "International Legion For The Territorial Defense Of Ukraine". Unlike in 2014, Ukraine was now specifically and officially soliciting foreigners with military experience to fight for them! I was at least technically in that category! I thought about my own time in the military. My ideas of going to war in Afghanistan had been quashed by the US withdrawal not long after I joined, and I had quickly found that military life involved more editing forms in Adobe Acrobat and less explosions than I had naively supposed. But this was a real war, a deadly serious war, and a major, world defining event at that. In the early months of the invasion the international media talked about almost nothing else. I spent all day at my desk pretending to work while frantically refreshing OSINT live maps and breathlessly following news from the front. I remember the circulation of harrowing video clips. Kalashnikovs being distributed to civilians in Kyiv, the mayor of a small village publicly asking its inhabitants whether they should personally accede to Russian ultimatums, or risk having their property destroyed and lives forfeit- to resounding cries of "Glory to Ukraine". The Ukrainians' courage blew my mind. There were people who really had something to die for, and by extension something to live for. Meanwhile, there I was, sipping coffee and getting fat. The creation of the legion felt like destiny was reaching its hand out to me. Was I really going to ignore it so I could handle support tickets for the rest of my life? https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-review-the-russo-ukrainian-war  

https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/sources-say-bay-area-house-party [previously in series: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7] Something is off about this Bay Area House Party. There are . . . women. "I've never seen a gender balance like this in the Bay Area," you tell your host Chris. "Is this one of those fabled ratio parties?" "No - have you heard of curtfishing? It's the new male dating trend. You say in your Bumble profile that you're a member of the Dissident Right who often attends parties with Curtis Yarvin. Then female journos ask you out in the hopes that you'll bring them along and they can turn it into an article." "What happens when they realize Curtis Yarvin isn't at the party?" "Oh, everyone pools their money and hires someone to pretend to be Curtis. You can just do things. Today it's Ramchandra." You follow his gaze, and there is Ramchandra, hair greased back, wearing a leather jacket, surrounded by a crowd of young women. "When I say I'm against furries," he's explaining, staccato, at 120 wpm, "I mean the sort of captured furries you get under the post-Warren-G-Harding liberal order, the ones getting the fat checks from the Armenians at Harvard and the Department of Energy. I love real furries, the kind you would have found in 1920s New Mexico eating crocodile steaks with Baron von Ungern-Sternberg! Some of my best friends are furries, as de Broglie-Bohm and my sainted mother used to say! Just watch out for the Kikuyu, that's my advice! Hahahahahaha!" Some of the women are taking notes. "But enough about me. When I was seventeen, I spent seven weeks in Bensonhurst - that's in the Rotten Apple, in case you can't tell your Nepalis from your Neapolitans. A dear uncle of mine, after whom I was named…" "Ramchandra is pretty good," you admit. "Still, if it were me I would have gone with a white guy." "It's fine," says Chris. "Curtis describes himself as a mischling, and none of the journos know what that means." Ramchandra is still talking. "Of course, strawberries have only been strawberries since after the Kronstadt Rebellion. Before that, strawberries were just pears. You had to get them hand-painted red by Gypsies, if you can believe that. Gypsies! So if you hear someone from west of Pennsylvania Avenue mention 'strawberries', that's what we in the business call il significanto." "I admit he has talent," you say. "But this curtfishing thing - surely at some point your date realizes that you're not actually a high-status yet problematic bad boy who can further her career just by existing, and then she ghosts you, right?" "That's every date in San Francisco. But when you curtfish, sometimes she comps your meal from her expense account. It's a strict Pareto improvement!" After some thought, you agree this is a great strategy with no downsides, maybe the biggest innovation in dating since the invention of alcohol. Having failed to bring your own journo to the party, you look for one who seems unattached. You catch the eye of a blonde woman who introduces herself as Gabrielle, and you try to give her the least autistic "Hello" of which you are capable.

[This is one of the finalists in the 2025 review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] 1. The Internet That Would Be In July 1945, Vannevar Bush was riding high. As Director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, he'd won World War II. His proximity fuse intercepted hundreds of V-1s and destroyed thousands of tanks, carving a path for Allied forces through the French countryside. Back in 1942, he'd advocated to President Roosevelt the merits of Oppenheimer's atomic bomb. Roosevelt and his congressional allies snuck hundreds of millions in covert funding to the OSRD's planned projects in Oak Ridge and Los Alamos. Writing directly and secretively to Bush, a one-line memo in June expressed Roosevelt's total confidence in his Director: "Do you have the money?" Indeed he did. The warheads it bought would fall on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in mere weeks. The Germans had already given up; Victory in the Pacific was nigh. So Bush was thinking ahead. In The Atlantic, Bush returned to a pre-war obsession with communication and knowledge-exchange. His essay, "As We May Think," imagined a new metascientifical endeavor (emphasis mine): https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-review-project-xanadu-the-internet

Someone argues that Donald Trump threatens democracy, maybe because he's asserting authority against the judiciary or the media or the NGOs. Someone else counterargues that it hardly seems undemocratic for someone to favor someone who won an election (the President) over other people who did not (the judiciary, the media). If anything, it seems undemocratic to allow the unelected people to continue to obstruct and harass elected leaders. The most common response is to say that fine, democracy is about who wins votes, but we also like liberalism, liberalism is under threat, it's too hard to talk about "liberalism" because in the US it sometimes means being left-wing, and so we use the related concept "democracy" as a stand-in. This is reasonable, and some accused-democracy-destroyers like Viktor Orban even accept it for themselves, calling their brand of government "illiberal democracy". But I think there's an even stronger response that doesn't require admitting to a bait-and-switch: democracy isn't just about having an election. It's about having more than one election. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/defining-defending-democracy-contra

[This is one of the finalists in the 2025 review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] I. THE TASTE OF VICTORY The Tupinambá people ate their enemies. This fact scared Hans Staden, a German explorer who was captured by Tupinambá warriors in 1554, when they caught him by surprise during a hunting expedition. As their prisoner for nearly a year, Staden observed a number of their cannibalism rituals. They were elaborate, public affairs; here's a description of them from Duffy and Metcalf's The Return of Hans Staden, an assessment of Staden's voyage and claims: (Ch. 2, pg. 51-52) First a rope was placed around the neck of the captive so that he might not escape; at night the rope was tied to the hammock in which the captive slept. Straps that were not removed were placed above and below the knees. The captives were given women, who guarded them and also slept with them. These women were high-status daughters and sisters of chiefs; they were unmarried and sometimes gave birth to the child of a captive. Some of the captives might be held for a period of time until corn was planted and new large clay vessels—for drink and cooking flesh—were made. Guests were invited to the ceremony, and they often arrived eight to fifteen days in advance of it. A special small house was erected, with no walls but with a roof, in which the captives were placed with women and guards two or three days before the ceremony. In the other houses, feathers were prepared for a headdress or for body ornamentation, and inks were made for tattoos. Women and girls prepared fifty to one hundred vats of fermented manioc beer. Then, when all was ready, they painted the victim's face blue, mounted a headdress of wax covered with feathers on him, and wound a cotton cord around his waist. The guests began to drink in the afternoon and continued all through the night. At dawn, the one who was to do the killing came out with a long, painted wooden club and smashed the captive on the head, splitting it open. The attacker then withdrew for eight to fifteen days of abstinence while the others ate the cooked flesh of the captive and finished all of the drink made for the occasion. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-review-the-synaptic-plasticity

I. Eliezer Yudkowsky's Machine Intelligence Research Institute is the original AI safety org. But the original isn't always the best - how is Mesopotamia doing these days? As money, brainpower, and prestige pour into the field, MIRI remains what it always was - a group of loosely-organized weird people, one of whom cannot be convinced to stop wearing a sparkly top hat in public. So when I was doing AI grantmaking last year, I asked them - why should I fund you instead of the guys with the army of bright-eyed Harvard grads, or the guys who just got Geoffrey Hinton as their celebrity spokesperson? What do you have that they don't? MIRI answered: moral clarity. Most people in AI safety (including me) are uncertain and confused and looking for least-bad incremental solutions. We think AI will probably be an exciting and transformative technology, but there's some chance, 5 or 15 or 30 percent, that it might turn against humanity in a catastrophic way. Or, if it doesn't, that there will be something less catastrophic but still bad - maybe humanity gradually fading into the background, the same way kings and nobles faded into the background during the modern era. This is scary, but AI is coming whether we like it or not, and probably there are also potential risks from delaying too hard. We're not sure exactly what to do, but for now we want to build a firm foundation for reacting to any future threat. That means keeping AI companies honest and transparent, helping responsible companies like Anthropic stay in the race, and investing in understanding AI goal structures and the ways that AIs interpret our commands. Then at some point in the future, we'll be close enough to the actually-scary AI that we can understand the threat model more clearly, get more popular buy-in, and decide what to do next. MIRI thinks this is pathetic - like trying to protect against an asteroid impact by wearing a hard hat. They're kind of cagey about their own probability of AI wiping out humanity, but it seems to be somewhere around 95 - 99%. They think plausibly-achievable gains in company responsibility, regulation quality, and AI scholarship are orders of magnitude too weak to seriously address the problem, and they don't expect enough of a "warning shot" that they feel comfortable kicking the can down the road until everything becomes clear and action is easy. They suggest banning all AI capabilities research immediately, to be restarted only in some distant future when the situation looks more promising. Both sides honestly believe their position and don't want to modulate their message for PR reasons. But both sides, coincidentally, think that their message is better PR. The incrementalists think a moderate, cautious approach keeps bridges open with academia, industry, government, and other actors that prefer normal clean-shaven interlocutors who don't emit spittle whenever they talk. MIRI thinks that the public is sick of focus-group-tested mealy-mouthed b******t, but might be ready to rise up against AI if someone presented the case in a clear and unambivalent way. Now Yudkowsky and his co-author, MIRI president Nate Soares, have reached new heights of unambivalence with their new book, If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies (release date September 16, currently available for preorder). https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-if-anyone-builds-it-everyone

[I haven't independently verified each link. On average, commenters will end up spotting evidence that around two or three of the links in each links post are wrong or misleading. I correct these as I see them, and will highlight important corrections later, but I can't guarantee I will have caught them all by the time you read this.] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/links-for-september-2025

[This is one of the finalists in the 2025 review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] If you've been following this blog for long, you probably know at least a bit about pharmaceutical research. You might know a bit about the sort of subtle measures pharmaceutical companies take to influence doctors' prescribing habits, or how it takes billions of dollars on average to bring a new medication to market, or something about the perverse incentives which determine the FDA's standards for accepting or rejecting a new drug. You might have some idea what kinds of hoops a company has to jump through to conduct actual research which meets legal guidelines for patient safety and autonomy. You may be less familiar though, with how the sausage is actually made. How do pharmaceutical companies actually go through the process of testing a drug on human participants? I'm going to be focusing here on a research subject's view of what are known as Phase I clinical trials, the stage in which prospective drugs are tested for safety and tolerability. This is where researchers aim to answer questions like "Does this drug have any dangerous side effects?" "Through what pathways is it removed from a patient's body?" and "Can we actually give people enough of this drug that it's useful for anything?" This comes before the stage where researchers test how good a drug is at actually treating any sort of disease, when patients who're suffering from the target ailments are given the option receive it as an experimental treatment. In Phase I clinical trials, the participants are healthy volunteers who're participating in research for money. There are almost no cases in which volunteer participation is driven by motivations other than money, because the attitudes between research participants and clinicians overwhelmingly tend to be characterized by mutual guarded distrust. This distrust is baked into the process, both on a cultural level among the participants, and by the clinics' own incentives. All of what follows is drawn from my own experiences, and experiences that other participants in clinical pharmaceutical research have shared with me, because for reasons which should become clear over the course of this review, research which systematically explores the behaviors and motives of clinical research participants is generally not feasible to conduct. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-review-participation-in-phase

"You made him lower than the angels for a short time..." God: …and the math results we're seeing are nothing short of incredible. This Terry Tao guy - Iblis: Let me stop you right there. I agree humans can, in controlled situations, provide correct answers to math problems. I deny that they truly understand math. I had a conversation with one of the humans recently, which I'll bring up here for the viewers … give me one moment … https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/what-is-man-that-thou-art-mindful

You can sign the letter here. The Trump administration has been retaliating against its critics, and people and groups with business before the administration have started laundering criticism through other sources with less need for goodwill. So I have been asked to share an open letter, which needs signatures from scientists, doctors, and healthcare professionals. The authors tell me (THIS IS NOT THE CONTENTS OF THE LETTER, IT'S THEIR EXPLANATION, TO ME, OF WHAT THE LETTER IS FOR): The NIH has spent at least $5 billion less of that money than Congress has appropriated to them, which is bad because medical research is good and we want more of it. In May, NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya told a room full of people that he would spend all the money by the end of the fiscal year. That is good news, because any money not spent by that point will disappear. The bad news is the fiscal year ends on September 30th and according to the American Association of Medical Colleges, "the true shortfall far exceeds $5 billion." Our open letter requests that Dr. Bhattacharya do what he said he would and spend all the money by September 30th. We as the originators of the letter do not want to be named publicly because we are concerned about being the focal point for blame and retaliation. We would rather be members of a large crowd of signatories than be singled out as individuals to make an example of. Based on our understanding of current administration norms, we do not expect retaliation against private individuals who sign this letter. We are looking for signatures from scientists, doctors, and healthcare professionals. So if that is you, please sign here. If you want to help support the letter more broadly, email [email protected]. Our stretch goal is to have a thousand people sign the letter within the next two weeks. To hammer home (since many people failed to understand it) that this is not the contents of the letter, I am including the actual contents below: We, the undersigned scientists, doctors, and public health stakeholders, commend your commitment to spend all funds allocated to the NIH, as reported in The Washington Post. At the same time, we are concerned by reports that U.S. institutions received nearly $5 billion less in NIH awards over the past year. With less than one month to the end of the fiscal year, we submit this urgent request to ensure that your commitment is upheld. If you anticipate that all appropriated funds cannot be spent in time, we request a public disclosure of the barriers preventing the achievement of this crucial responsibility. We present this request in the spirit of the broad, bipartisan consensus in favor of spending appropriated NIH funds. In their July letter to the Office of Management and Budget, fourteen Republican senators, led by Senators Collins, Britt, and McConnell, forcefully argued that suspension of NIH funds "could threaten Americans' ability to access better treatments and limit our nation's leadership in biomedical science." The case for investment in medical research transcends political divides as it serves our collective national interest. The return on investment from research is compelling. Synthesizing the empirical literature, economist Matt Clancy estimates that each public and private R&D dollar yields roughly $5.50 in GDP—and about $11 when broader benefits are counted. Every dollar of NIH funding not deployed represents lost opportunities for breakthrough treatments, missed chances to train the next generation of scientists, and diminished returns on America's innovation ecosystem. Spending these funds is also a competitiveness imperative as China attempts to transform itself from a low-end manufacturer to a high-tech research and innovation juggernaut. In 2024, the Chinese government increased its spending on science and technology by 10%, and the nation's total expenditure on research and development increased by 50% in nominal terms between 2020 and 2024. As China's number of clinical trials and new drug candidates begin to outpace the U.S., America cannot afford to allow biomedical research funding to go unspent. We respectfully ask that you ensure that NIH will obligate all FY25 funds by September 30, 2025, and, if that is not possible, that you address the scientific community to explain why and what must be done to ensure all appropriated funds are spent in FY26. We stand ready to support your efforts to preserve this vital national investment. https://readscottalexander.com/posts/acx-open-letter-to-the-nih  

AI psychosis (NYT, PsychologyToday) is an apparent phenomenon where people go crazy after talking to chatbots too much. There are some high-profile anecdotes, but still many unanswered questions. For example, how common is it really? Are the chatbots really driving people crazy, or just catching the attention of people who were crazy already? Isn't psychosis supposed to be a biological disease? Wouldn't that make chatbot-induced psychosis the same kind of category error as chatbot-induced diabetes? I don't have all the answers, so think of this post as an exploration of possible analogies and precedents rather than a strongly-held thesis. Also, I might have one answer - I think the yearly incidence of AI psychosis is somewhere around 1 in 10,000 (for a loose definition) to 1 in 100,000 (for a strict definition). I'll talk about how I got those numbers at the end. But first: I. Lenin Was A Mushroom https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/in-search-of-ai-psychosis

Finalist #9 in the Review Contest [This is one of the finalists in the 2025 review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] Ollantay is a three-act play written in Quechua, an indigenous language of the South American Andes. It was first performed in Peru around 1775. Since the mid-1800s it's been performed more often, and nowadays it's pretty easy to find some company in Peru doing it. If nothing else, it's popular in Peruvian high schools as a way to get students to connect with Quechua history. It's not a particularly long play; a full performance of Ollantay takes around an hour.1 Also, nobody knows where Ollantay was written, when it was written, or who wrote it. And its first documented performance led directly to upwards of a hundred thousand deaths. Macbeth has killed at most fifty people,2 and yet it routinely tops listicles of "deadliest plays". I'm here to propose that Ollantay take its place. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-review-ollantay

[original post here] #1: Isn't it possible that embryos are alive, or have personhood, or are moral patients? Most IVF involves getting many embryos, then throwing out the ones that the couple doesn't need to implant. If destroying embryos were wrong, then IVF would be unethical - and embryo selection, which might encourage more people to do IVF, or to maximize the number of embryos they get from IVF, would be extra unethical. I think a default position would be that if you believe humans are more valuable than cows, and cows more valuable than bugs - presumably because humans are more conscious/intelligent/complex/thoughtful/have more hopes and dreams/experience more emotions - then in that case embryos, which have less of a brain and nervous system even than bugs, should be less valuable still. One reason to abandon this default position would be if you believe in souls or some other nonphysical basis for personhood. Then maybe the soul would enter the embryo at conception. I think even here, it's hard to figure out exactly what you're saying - the soul clearly isn't doing very much, in the sense of experiencing things, while it's in the embryo. But it seems like God is probably pretty attached to souls, and maybe you don't want to mess with them while He's watching. In any case, all I can say is that this isn't my metaphysics. But most people in the comments took a different tactic, arguing that we should give embryos special status (compared to cows and bugs) because they had the potential to grow into a person. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/my-responses-to-three-concerns-from

Finalist #8 in the Review Contest [This is one of the finalists in the 2025 review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] I. The Men Are Not Alright Sometimes I'm convinced there's a note taped to my back that says, "PLEASE SPILL YOUR SOUL UPON THIS WOMAN." I am not a therapist, nor in any way certified to deal with emotional distress, yet my presence seems to cause people to regurgitate their traumas. This quirk of mine becomes especially obvious when dating. Many of my dates turn into pseudo-therapy sessions, with men sharing emotional traumas they've kept bottled up for years. One moment I'm learning about his cat named Daisy, and then half a latte later, I'm hearing a detailed account of his third suicide attempt, complete with a critique of the food in the psychiatric ward. This repeated pattern in my dating life has taught me three things: I am terrible at small talk. Most men are not accustomed to genuine questions about their well-being, and will often respond with a desperate upwelling of emotion. The men are not alright. This is a review of dating men in the Bay Area. But more than that, it's an attempt to explain those unofficial therapy sessions to people who never get to hear them. It's a review of the various forms of neglect and abuse society inflicts upon men, and the inevitable consequences to their happiness and romantic partnerships. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-review-dating-men-in-the-bay

A guest post by David Schneider-Joseph The "amyloid hypothesis" says that Alzheimer's is caused by accumulation of the peptide amyloid-β. It's the leading model in academia, but a favorite target for science journalists, contrarian bloggers, and neuroscience public intellectuals, who point out problems like: Some of the research establishing amyloid's role turned out to be fraudulent. The level of amyloid in the brain doesn't correlate very well with the level of cognitive impairment across Alzheimer's patients. Several strains of mice that were genetically programmed to have extra amyloid did eventually develop cognitive impairments. But it took much higher amyloid levels than humans have, and on further investigation the impairments didn't really look like Alzheimer's. Some infectious agents, like the gingivitis bacterium and the herpesviruses, seem to play a role in at least some Alzheimer's cases. . . . and amyloid is one of the body's responses to injury or infection, so it might be a harmless byproduct of these infections or whatever else the real disease is. Anti-amyloid drugs (like Aduhelm) don't reverse the disease, and only slow progression a relatively small amount. Opponents call the amyloid hypothesis zombie science, propped up only by pharmaceutical companies hoping to sell off a few more anti-amyloid me-too drugs before it collapses. Meanwhile, mainstream scientists . . . continue to believe it without really offering any public defense. Scott was so surprised by the size of the gap between official and unofficial opinion that he asked if someone from the orthodox camp would speak out in its favor. I am David Schneider-Joseph, an engineer formerly with SpaceX and Google, now working in AI safety. Alzheimer's isn't my field, but I got very interested in it, spent six months studying the literature, and came away believing the amyloid hypothesis was basically completely solid. I thought I'd share that understanding with current skeptics. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/in-defense-of-the-amyloid-hypothesis

[Original post: Should Strong Gods Bet On GDP?] 1: Comments About The Theory 2: Comments About Specific Communities 3: Other Comments Comments About The Theory Darwin writes: I think you may (*may*, I'm not sure) be vastly underestimating how many people are in some form of nontraditional tight-knit community. Notice that many of the communities you list are things you've directly personally encountered through your online interests or social circle. Most people have never heard of libertarian homesteaders or rationalist dating sites, perhaps you have also never heard of the things most other people belong to. For my part, I have been part of a foam combat ('boffer') organization since college. You may want to say 'that's not a community, that's just a hobby', but the people in this sport form a strong community with tight bonds outside the game itself. Not only do I go to practices twice a week, I have 2 D&D games and 1 board game night every week with mostly members of the community, members of the community are my friends that I go out to movies and dinners with, play video games with voice chat on Discord with, talk to online in Discord servers and web forums and group chats, go to parties with and gossip about with other community members. Aside from attending over a dozen weddings of community members (mostly to other community members), I've served as best man for 2 members and wedding officiant for 2 other members. The sport itself has houses, guilds, and fighting units, all with their own ethos, credos, goals, activities, and hierarchies; it has knighthoods and squireships, it has awards for arts and crafts and community service. The sport has regular camping events that end up looking like temporary compounds of hundreds to thousand+ members, lasting from a weekend to a week. We may not have a singular God or Invisible Hand we all worship, but we have strong community norms towards things like inclusion, creating positive experiences, some modernized gender-neutral version of chivalry, creating safe spaces, etc. If you didn't know me very very well, you might know that 'oh yeah, he does some kind of sword fighting thing on the weekends I think?', and not know there's a large and strong community there. I wonder how many other things are like this - I think 'oh yeah, they play softball on the weekends, oh yeah, they belong to a knitting circle, oh yeah, they go to a lot of concerts, oh yeah, they volunteer at some kind of community center', and have no idea that there's a strong close-knit community surrounding those things that remains largely invisible to outsiders. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-liberalism

[This is one of the finalists in the 2025 review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] My dad only actually enjoys about ten foods, nine of them beige. His bread? White. His pizza? Cheese. His meat? Turkey breast. And his side dish? Mashed potatoes. As a child I hated mashed potatoes, despite his evangelization of them. I too was a picky eater growing up, but I would occasionally attempt to see what he saw in his beloved spuds. Whenever I tried a bite, the texture disgusted me: a gritty gruel of salty flakes coated with the oleic pall of margarine. The flavor reminded me of stale Pringles. I checked back once every couple years, but was repulsed by them every time. I lobbied my parents for pasta or frozen tater tots or any other side I actually liked. Family dinners were often dichotomous, the same protein supplemented by two different carbs. "You are not my son," my father would joke as he continued to put away his potato slop. "Maybe you're not my father," I'd shoot back when he shunned the rest of the family's rice pilaf. Our starch preferences seemed irreconcilable. As I entered my teen years, my palate expanded. After I'd tried and enjoyed brussels sprouts and sushi and escargot, my hatred of one of the most basic and inoffensive of all foods seemed silly. One day at a nice restaurant, I decided to give mashed potatoes one more try. Upon taking my first bite, I realized three things: 1) Mashed potatoes are good. 2) Whatever my dad had been eating at home was not mashed potatoes. 3) My world is built on lies. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-review-my-fathers-instant-mashed

Slightly contra Fukuyama on liberal communities Francis Fukuyama is on Substack; last month he wrote Liberalism Needs Community. As always, read the whole thing and don't trust my summary, but the key point is: R. R. Reno, editor of the magazine First Things, the liberal project of the past three generations has sought to weaken the "strong Gods" of populism, nationalism, and religion that were held to be the drivers of the bloody conflicts of the early 20th century. Those gods are now returning, and are present in the politics of both the progressive left and far right—particularly the right, which is characterized today by demands for strong national identities or religious foundations for national communities. However, there is a cogent liberal response to the charge that liberalism undermines community. The problem is that, just as in the 1930s, that response has not been adequately articulated by the defenders of liberalism. Liberalism is not intrinsically opposed to community; indeed, there is a version of liberalism that encourages the flourishing of strong community and human virtue. That community emerges through the development of a strong and well-organized civil society, where individuals freely choose to bond with other like-minded individuals to seek common ends. People are free to follow "strong Gods"; the only caveat is that there is no single strong god that binds the entire society together. In other words - yes, part of the good life is participation in a tight-knit community with strong values. Liberalism's shared values are comparatively weak, and its knitting comparatively loose. But that's no argument against the liberal project. Its goal isn't to become this kind of community itself, but to be the platform where communities like this can grow up. So in a liberal democracy, Christians can have their church, Jews their synagogue, Communists their commune, and so on. Everyone gets the tight-knit community they want - which beats illiberalism, where (at most) one group gets the community they want and everyone else gets persecuted. On a theoretical level, this is a great answer. On a practical level - is it really working? Are we really a nation dotted with tight-knit communities of strong values? The average person has a church they don't attend and a political philosophy that mainly cashes out in Twitter dunks. Otherwise they just consume whatever slop the current year's version of capitalism chooses to throw at them. It's worth surveying the exceptions that prove the rule: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/should-strong-gods-bet-on-gdp

Finalist #6 in the Review Contest [This is one of the finalists in the 2025 review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] When the prefect of Alexandria's daughter converted to Christianity, nothing in particular happened - it wasn't as though the laws outlawing the cult would be enforced against her. She was smart, she was pretty (beautiful, even) and she had connections. So long as she kept quiet, Catherine could have a comfortable life. She didn't keep quiet. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-review-joan-of-arc  

[see footnote 4 for conflicts of interest] In 2021, Genomic Prediction announced the first polygenically selected baby. When a couple uses IVF, they may get as many as ten embryos. If they only want one child, which one do they implant? In the early days, doctors would just eyeball them and choose whichever looked healthiest. Later, they started testing for some of the most severe and easiest-to-detect genetic disorders like Down Syndrome and cystic fibrosis1. The final step was polygenic selection - genotyping each embryo and implanting the one with the best genes overall. Best in what sense? Genomic Prediction claimed the ability to forecast health outcomes from diabetes to schizophrenia. For example, although the average person has a 30% chance of getting type II diabetes, if you genetically test five embryos and select the one with the lowest predicted risk, they'll only have a 20% chance2. Since you're taking the healthiest of many embryos, you should expect a child conceived via this method to be significantly healthier than one born naturally. Polygenic selection straddles the line between disease prevention and human enhancement. In 2023, Orchid Health entered the field. Unlike Genomic Prediction, which tested only the most important genetic variants, Orchid offers whole genome sequencing, which can detect the de novo3 mutations involved in autism, developmental disorders, and certain other genetic diseases. Critics accused GP and Orchid of offering "designer babies", but this was only true in the weakest sense - customers couldn't "design" a baby for anything other than slightly lower risk of genetic disease. These companies refused to offer selection on "traits" - the industry term for the really controversial stuff like height, IQ, or eye color. Still, these were trivial extensions of their technology, and everybody knew it was just a matter of time before someone took the plunge. Last month, a startup called Nucleus took the plunge. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/suddenly-trait-based-embryo-selection

I promised some people longer responses: Thomas Cotter asks why people think "consistency" is an important moral value. After all, he says, the Nazis and Soviets were "consistent" with their evil beliefs. I'm not so sure of his examples - the Soviets massacred workers striking for better conditions, and the Nazis were so bad at race science that they banned IQ tests after Jews outscored Aryans - but I'm sure if he looked harder he could find some evil person who was superficially consistent with themselves. Hen Mazzig on Twitter is suspicious that lots of people oppose the massacres in Gaza without having objected equally strenuously to various other things. Again, he's bad at examples - most of the things he names are less bad than the massacres in Gaza - but I'm sure if he looked harder he could find some thing which was worse than Gaza and which not quite as many people had protested. Therefore, people who object to the massacres in Gaza must be motivated by anti-Semitism. An r/TrueUnpopularOpinion poster argues that No One Actually Cares About Gaza; Your Anger Is Performative. They say that (almost) nobody can actually sustain strong emotions about the deaths of some hard-to-pin-down number of people they don't know, and so probably people who claim to care are virtue-signaling or luxury-believing or one of those things. Since 2/3 of these are about Gaza, we'll start there. And since there's so much virtue-signaling and luxury-believing going around these days, I assure you that what I am about to share is my absolute most honest and deepest opinion, the one I hold in my heart of hearts.  https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/my-heart-of-hearts  

Jul 26, 2025 Finalist #5 in the Review Contest [This is one of the finalists in the 2025 review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] Introduction The Astral Codex Ten (ACX) Commentariat is defined as the 24,485 individuals other than Scott who have contributed to the corpus of work of Scott's blog posts, chiefly by leaving comments at the bottom of those posts. It is well understood (by the Commentariat themselves) that they are the best comments section anywhere on the internet, and have been for some time. This review takes it as a given that the ACX Commentariat outclasses all of its pale imitators across the web, so I won't compare the ACX Commentariat to e.g. reddit. The real question is whether our glory days are behind us – specifically whether the ACX Commentariat of today has lost its edge compared to the SSC Commentariat of pre-2021. A couple of years ago Scott asked, Why Do I Suck?. This was a largely tongue-in-cheek springboard to discuss a substantive criticism he regularly received - that his earlier writing was better than his writing now. How far back do we need to go before his writing was 'good'? Accounts seemed to differ; Scott said that the feedback he got was of two sorts: "I loved your articles from about 2013 - 2016 so much! Why don't you write articles like that any more?", which dates the decline to 2016 "Do you feel like you've shifted to less ambitious forms of writing with the new Substack?", which dates the decline to 2021 Quite a few people responded in the comments that Scott's writing hadn't changed, but it was the experience of being a commentor which had worsened. For example, David Friedman, a prolific commentor on the blog in the SSC-era, writes: A lot of what I liked about SSC was the commenting community, and I find the comments here less interesting than they were on SSC, fewer interesting arguments, which is probably why I spend more time on [an alternative forum] than on ACX. Similarly, kfix seems to be a long-time lurker (from as early as 2016) who has become more active in the ACX-era, writes: I would definitely agree that the commenting community here is 'worse' than at SSC along the lines you describe, along with the also unwelcome hurt feelings post whenever Scott makes an offhand joke about a political/cultural topic. And of course, this position wasn't unanimous. Verbamundi Consulting is a true lurker who has only ever made one post on the blog – this one: Ok, I've been lurking for a while, but I have to say: I don't think you suck… You have a good variety of topics, your commenting community remains excellent, and you're one of the few bloggers I continue to follow. The ACX Commentariat is somewhat unique in that it self-styles itself as a major reason to come and read Scott's writing – Scott offers up some insights on an issue, and then the comments section engages unusually open and unusually respectful discussion of the theme, and the total becomes greater than the sum of the parts. Therefore, if the Commentariat has declined in quality it may disproportionately affect people's experience of Scott's posts. The joint value of each Scott-plus-Commentariat offering declines if the Commentariat are not pulling their weight, even if Scott himself remains just as good as ever. In Why Do I Suck? Scott suggests that there is weak to no evidence of a decline in his writing quality, so I propose this review as something of a companion piece; is the (alleged) problem with the blog, in fact, staring at us in the mirror? My personal view aligns with Verbamundi Consulting and many other commentors - I've enjoyed participating in both the SSC and ACX comments, and I haven't noticed any decline in Commentariat quality. So, I was extremely surprised to find the data totally contradicted my anecdotal experience, and indicated a very clear dropoff in a number of markers of quality at almost exactly the points Scott mentioned in Why Do I Suck? – one in mid-2016 and one in early 2021 during the switch from SSC to ACX. https://readscottalexander.com/posts/acx-your-review-the-astral-codex-ten 

We're running another ACX Grants round! If you already know what this is and just want to apply for a grant, use the form here (should take 15 - 30 minutes), deadline August 15. If you already know what this is and want to help as a funder, VC, partner charity, evaluator, or friendly professional, click the link for the relevant form, same deadline. Otherwise see below for more information. What is ACX Grants? ACX Grants is a microgrants program that helps fund ACX readers' charitable or scientific projects. Click the links to see the 2022 and 2024 cohorts. The program is conducted in partnership with Manifund, a charity spinoff of Manifold Markets, who handle the administrative/infrastructure side of things. How much money is involved? I plan to contribute $200K. I expect (but cannot guarantee) an additional $800K from other donors, for a total of about $1 million. Most grants will probably be between $5,000 and $50,000, with a rare few up to $100,000. Depending on how much external donor interest there is, we will probably give between 10 and 50 grants. What's the catch? There's no catch, but this year we plan to experiment with replacing some grants with SAFEs, and others with convertible grants. That means that if you're a startup, we (ACX Grants as an nonprofit institution, not me personally) get some claim to future equity if you succeed. If you're not a startup, you'll sign an agreement saying that if your project ever becomes a startup, then we'll get the equity claim. We're still working on the exact details of this agreement, but we intend to have pretty standard terms and err in the favorable-to-you direction; obviously we'll show you the final agreement before you sign anything. We're doing this because some of our previous grantees became valuable companies, and it seems foolish to leave that money on the table when we could be capturing it and reinvesting it into future grants rounds. Please don't let this affect your decision to apply. Our top priority remains charity, and we'll continue to select grantees based on their philanthropic value and not on their likelihood of making us money. If you're not a startup and don't plan to become one, none of this should affect you. And if you have a good reason not to want to sign these agreements - including "I'm not savvy enough to know what this means and it makes me nervous" - then we're happy to opt you out of them. What's the timeline? We'd like to have grants awarded by October 1 and money in your hands by November 1. This is a goal, not a promise. What will the application process be like? You fill out a form that should take 15 - 30 minutes. If we have questions, an evaluator might email or call you, in a way that hopefully won't take more than another 15 - 30 minutes of your time to answer. If you win a grant, Manifund will send you the money, probably by bank wire. Every few years, we might ask you to fill out another 15 - 30 minute form letting us know how your project is doing. What kind of projects might you fund? There are already lots of good charities that help people directly at scale, for example Against Malaria Foundation (which distributes malaria-preventing bed nets) and GiveDirectly (which gives money directly to very poor people in Africa). These are hard to beat. We're most interested in charities that pursue novel ways to change complex systems, either through technological breakthroughs, new social institutions, or targeted political change. Among the projects we've funded in the past were: Development of oxfendazole, a drug for treating parasitic worms in developing countries. A platform that lets people create prediction markets on topics of their choice A trip to Nigeria for college students researching lead poisoning prevention. A group of lawyers who sue factory farms under animal cruelty laws. Development of software that helps the FDA run better drug trials. A startup building anti-mosquito drones to fight tropical disease A guide for would-be parents on which IVF clinics have the highest successful rate of successful implantation. A university lab working on artificial kidneys You can read the full list here and here, and the most recent updates from each project here. Is there anything good about winning an ACX Grant other than getting money? You'll get my support, which is mostly useful in getting me to blog about your project. For example, I can put out updates or requests for help on Open Threads. I can also try to help connect you to people I know. Some people who won ACX Grants last year were able to leverage the attention to attract larger grantmakers or VCs. You can try to pitch me guest posts about your project. This could be a description of what you're doing and why, or just a narrative about your experience and what you learned from it. Warning that I'm terrible to pitch guest posts to, I almost never go through with this, and I'm very nitpicky when I do. Still, you can try. We're working on gathering a network of friendly professionals who agree to provide pro bono or heavily discounted support (eg legal, accounting, business advice, cloud compute) to ACX grantees. We've only just begun this process and it might not actually materialize. There are occasional virtual and physical meetups of ACX grantees; these don't always result in Important Professional Connections, but are pretty interesting. What if I want those nonfinancial benefits for my project, but don't need money? Apply for a grant of $1. But we're pretty nervous about giving very-low-cost grants because it's too easy to accept all of them and dilute our signaling value; for this reason, it might be harder to get a grant of $1 than a grant of $5,000, and we expect these to make up only 0 - 10% of our cohort. You might be better off coming up with some expansion of your project that takes $5,000 and applying for that. What are the tax implications of an ACX Grant? Consult your accountant, especially if you live outside the US. If you live inside the US, we think it's ordinary taxable income. If you're an individual, you'll have to pay taxes on it at your usual tax rate. If you're a 501(c), you'll get your normal level of tax exemption. I want to fund you, how can I help? For bureaucratic reasons, we're currently looking for donations mostly in the $5,000+ range. If that's you, fill out the Funder Application Form. If we've already talked about this over email, you don't need to fill out the form, but we encourage you to do so anyway so we know more about your interests and needs. What's the story behind why you have $200K to spend on grants every year, but are still asking for more funding? Some generous readers sent me crypto during the crypto boom, or advised me on buying crypto, or asked to purchase NFTs of my post for crypto. Some of the crypto went up. Then I reinvested it into AI stocks, and those went up too. I think of this as unearned money and want to give some of it back to the community, hence this grants program. I have a lot of it but not an unlimited amount. At the current rate, I can probably afford another ~5 ACX Grants rounds. When it runs out, I'll just be a normal person with normal amounts of money (Substack is great, but not great enough for me to afford this level of donation consistently). My hope is that I can keep making these medium-sized donations, other people can add more to the pot, and we'll be able to drag this out at least five more rounds, after which point maybe we'll come up with another plan. I'm a VC, how can I help? Some of our applicants are potentially-profitable startups, and we decide they're a better match for VC funding than for our grants. If you're willing to look these over and get in touch with any that seem interesting, fill out the VC Application Form. It will ask for more information on what kind of opportunities you're interested in funding. I'm a philanthropist or work at a philanthropic foundation; how can I help? Some of our applicants are good projects, but not a good match for us, and we want to shop them around to other philanthropists and charities who might have different strengths or be able to work with larger amounts of money. If that's you, please fill out the Partner Charity Application Form I'm good at evaluating grants, or an expert in some specific field; how can I help? If you have experience as a grantmaker or VC, or you're an expert in some technical field, you might be able to help us evaluate proposals. Fill out the Evaluator Application Form. By default we expect you'll want us to send you one or two grants in your area of expertise, but if you want a challenge you can request more. If we've already talked about this over email, you don't need to fill out the form, but we encourage you to do so anyway so I know more about your interests and needs. We expect to get more volunteers than we need, and most people who fill in the evaluator form won't get contacted unless we need someone from their specific field. I'm a professional who wants to do pro bono work for cool charities, how can I help? Fill out the Friendly Professional Application Form. If we get enough applicants, we'll compile them into a directory for our grantees. I participated in the Impact Certificate Market last year, did you forget about me? Yes until Austin Chen reminded me last month No! Request final oracular funding by filling in the Impact Applicant Form. Sorry, I forgot, where do I go to apply for a grant again? See form here. Please apply by 11:59 PM on August 15th. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/apply-for-an-acx-grant-2025

[previously in series: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] It is eerily silent in San Francisco tonight. Since Mayor Lurie's crackdown, the usual drug hawkers, catcallers, and street beggars are nowhere to be seen. Still, your luck can't last forever, and just before you reach your destination a man with bloodshot eyes lurches towards you. You recognize him and sigh. "Go away!" you shout. "Hey man," says Mark Zuckerberg, grabbing your wrist. "You wanna come build superintelligence at Meta? I'll give you five million, all cash." "I said go away!" "Ten million plus a Lambo," he counters. "I don't even know anything about AI!" you say. "I'll pay you fifty million to learn." "F@$k off!"

[This is one of the finalists in the 2025 review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-review-islamic-geometric-patterns

I. A thought I had throughout reading L.R. Hiatt's Arguments About Aborigines was: What are anthropologists even doing? The book recounts two centuries' worth of scholarly disputes over questions like whether aboriginal tribes had chiefs. But during those centuries, many Aborigines learned English, many Westerners learned Aboriginal languages, and representatives of each side often spent years embedded in one another's culture. What stopped some Westerner from approaching an Aborigine, asking "So, do you have chiefs?" and resolving a hundred years of bitter academic debate? Of course the answer must be something like "categories from different cultures don't map neatly into another, and Aboriginal hierarchies have something that matches the Western idea of 'chief' in some sense but not in others". And there are other complicating factors - maybe some Aboriginal tribes have chiefs and others don't. Or maybe Aboriginal social organization changed after Western contact, and whatever chiefs they do or don't have are a foreign imposition. Or maybe something about chiefs is taboo, and if you ask an Aborigine directly they'll lie or dissemble or say something that's obviously a euphemism to them but totally meaningless to you. All of these points are well taken. It still seems weird that the West could interact with an entire continent full of Aborigines for two hundred years and remain confused about basic facts of their social lives. You can repeat the usual platitudes about why anthropology is hard as many times as you want; it still doesn't quite seem to sink in. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-arguments-about-aborigines

[This is one of the finalists in the 2025 review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] "The scientific paper is a 'fraud' that creates "a totally misleading narrative of the processes of thought that go into the making of scientific discoveries." This critique comes not from a conspiracist on the margins of science, but from Nobel laureate Sir Peter Medawar. A brilliant experimentalist whose work on immune tolerance laid the foundation for modern organ transplantation, Sir Peter understood both the power and the limitations of scientific communication. Consider the familiar structure of a scientific paper: Introduction (background and hypothesis), Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion. This format implies that the work followed a clean, sequential progression: scientists identified a gap in knowledge, formulated a causal explanation, designed definitive experiments to fill the gap, evaluated compelling results, and most of the time, confirmed their hypothesis. Real lab work rarely follows such a clear path. Biological research is filled with what Medawar describes lovingly as "messing about": false starts, starting in the middle, unexpected results, reformulated hypotheses, and intriguing accidental findings. The published paper ignores the mess in favour of the illusion of structure and discipline. It offers an ideal version of what might have happened rather than a confession of what did. The polish serves a purpose. It makes complex work accessible (at least if you work in the same or a similar field!). It allows researchers to build upon new findings. But the contrived omissions can also play upon even the most well-regarded scientist's susceptibility to the seduction of story. As Christophe Bernard, Director of Research at the Institute of Systems Neuroscience (Marseilles, Fr.) recently explained, "when we are reading a paper, we tend to follow the reasoning and logic of the authors, and if the argumentation is nicely laid out, it is difficult to pause, take a step back, and try to get an overall picture." Our minds travel the narrative path laid out for us, making it harder to spot potential flaws in logic or alternative interpretations of the data, and making conclusions feel far more definitive than they often are. Medawar's framing is my compass when I do deep dives into major discoveries in translational neuroscience. I approach papers with a dual vision. First, what is actually presented? But second, and often more importantly, what is not shown? How was the work likely done in reality? What alternatives were tried but not reported? What assumptions guided the experimental design? What other interpretations might fit the data if the results are not as convincing or cohesive as argued? And what are the consequences for scientific progress? In the case of Alzheimer's research, they appear to be stark: thirty years of prioritizing an incomplete model of the disease's causes; billions of corporate, government, and foundation dollars spent pursuing a narrow path to drug development; the relative exclusion of alternative hypotheses from funding opportunities and attention; and little progress toward disease-modifying treatments or a cure. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-review-of-mice-mechanisms-and

Steven Byrnes is a physicist/AI researcher/amateur neuroscientist; needless to say, he blogs on Less Wrong. I finally got around to reading his 2024 series giving a predictive processing perspective on intuitive self-models. If that sounds boring, it shouldn't: Byrnes charges head-on into some of the toughest subjects in psychology, including trance, amnesia, and multiple personalities. I found his perspective enlightening (no pun intended; meditation is another one of his topics) and thought I would share. It all centers around this picture:   But first: some excruciatingly obvious philosophical preliminaries. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/practically-a-book-review-byrnes 

  In June 2022, I bet a commenter $100 that AI would master image compositionality by June 2025. DALL-E2 had just come out, showcasing the potential of AI art. But it couldn't follow complex instructions; its images only matched the "vibe" of the prompt. For example, here were some of its attempts at "a red sphere on a blue cube, with a yellow pyramid on the right, all on top of a green table". At the time, I wrote: I'm not going to make the mistake of saying these problems are inherent to AI art. My guess is a slightly better language model would solve most of them…for all I know, some of the larger image models have already fixed these issues. These are the sorts of problems I expect to go away with a few months of future research. Commenters objected that this was overly optimistic. AI was just a pattern-matching "stochastic parrot". It would take a deep understanding of grammar to get a prompt exactly right, and that would require some entirely new paradigm beyond LLMs. For example, from Vitor: Why are you so confident in this? The inability of systems like DALL-E to understand semantics in ways requiring an actual internal world model strikes me as the very heart of the issue. We can also see this exact failure mode in the language models themselves. They only produce good results when the human asks for something vague with lots of room for interpretation, like poetry or fanciful stories without much internal logic or continuity. Not to toot my own horn, but two years ago you were naively saying we'd have GPT-like models scaled up several orders of magnitude (100T parameters) right about now (https://readscottalexander.com/posts/ssc-the-obligatory-gpt-3-post#comment-912798). I'm registering my prediction that you're being equally naive now. Truly solving this issue seems AI-complete to me. I'm willing to bet on this (ideas on operationalization welcome). So we made a bet! All right. My proposed operationalization of this is that on June 1, 2025, if either if us can get access to the best image generating model at that time (I get to decide which), or convince someone else who has access to help us, we'll give it the following prompts: 1. A stained glass picture of a woman in a library with a raven on her shoulder with a key in its mouth 2. An oil painting of a man in a factory looking at a cat wearing a top hat 3. A digital art picture of a child riding a llama with a bell on its tail through a desert 4. A 3D render of an astronaut in space holding a fox wearing lipstick 5. Pixel art of a farmer in a cathedral holding a red basketball We generate 10 images for each prompt, just like DALL-E2 does. If at least one of the ten images has the scene correct in every particular on 3/5 prompts, I win, otherwise you do. Loser pays winner $100, and whatever the result is I announce it on the blog (probably an open thread). If we disagree, Gwern is the judge. Some image models of the time refused to draw humans, so we agreed that robots could stand in for humans in pictures that required them. In September 2022, I got some good results from Google Imagen and announced I had won the three-year bet in three months. Commenters yelled at me, saying that Imagen still hadn't gotten them quite right and my victory declaration was premature. The argument blew up enough that Edwin Chen of Surge, an "RLHF and human LLM evaluation platform", stepped in and asked his professional AI data labelling team. Their verdict was clear: the AI was bad and I was wrong. Rather than embarrass myself further, I agreed to wait out the full length of the bet and re-evaluate in June 2025. The bet is now over, and official judge Gwern agrees I've won. Before I gloat, let's look at the images that got us here. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/now-i-really-won-that-ai-bet

[This is one of the finalists in the 2025 review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. It was originally given an Honorable Mention, but since last week's piece was about an exciting new experimental school, I decided to promote this more conservative review as a counterpoint.] "Democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." - Winston Churchill "There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it." - G.K. Chesterton https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-review-school

[Original thread here: Missing Heritability: Much More Than You Wanted To Know] 1: Comments From People Named In The Post 2: Very Long Comments From Other Very Knowledgeable People 3: Small But Important Corrections 4: Other Comments https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-missing-ed5

[I haven't independently verified each link. On average, commenters will end up spotting evidence that around two or three of the links in each links post are wrong or misleading. I correct these as I see them, and will highlight important corrections later, but I can't guarantee I will have caught them all by the time you read this.] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/links-for-july-2025

Stephen Skolnick is a gut microbiome expert blogging at Eat Shit And Prosper. His most recent post argues that contra the psychiatric consensus, schizophrenia isn't genetic at all - it's caused by a gut microbe. He argues: Scientists think schizophrenia is genetic because it obviously runs in families But the twin concordance rates are pretty low - if your identical twin has schizophrenia, there's only about a 30%-40% chance that you get it too. Is that really what we would expect from a genetic disease? Also, scientists have looked for schizophrenia genes, and can only find about 1-2% as many as they were expecting. So maybe we should ask how a disease can run in families without being genetic. Gut microbiota provide an answer: most people "catch" their gut microbiome from their parents. Studies find that schizophrenics have very high levels of a gut bacterium called Ruminococcus gnavus. This bacterium secretes psychoactive chemicals. Constant exposure to these chemicals might be the cause of schizophrenia. I disagree with all of this. Going in order: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/contra-skolnick-on-schizophrenia

[This is one of the finalists in the 2025 review contest, written by an ACX reader who will remain anonymous until after voting is done. I'll be posting about one of these a week for several months. When you've read them all, I'll ask you to vote for a favorite, so remember which ones you liked] "Just as we don't accept students using AI to write their essays, we will not accept districts using AI to supplant the critical role of teachers." — Arthur Steinberg, American Federation of Teachers‑PA, reacting to Alpha's cyber‑charter bid, January 2025 In January 2025, the charter school application of "Unbound Academy", a subsidiary of "2 Hour Learning, Inc", lit up the education press: two hours of "AI‑powered" academics, 2.6x learning velocity, and zero teachers. Sympathetic reporters repeated the slogans; union leaders reached for pitchforks; Reddit muttered "another rich‑kid scam." More sophisticated critics dismissed the pitch as "selective data from expensive private schools". But there is nowhere on the internet that provides a detailed, non-partisan, description of what the "2 hour learning" program actually is, let alone an objective third party analysis to back up its claims. 2-Hour Learning's flagship school is the "Alpha School" in Austin Texas. The Alpha homepage makes three claims: Love School Learn 2X in two-hours per day Learn Life Skills Only the second claim seems to be controversial, which may be exactly why that is the claim the Alpha PR team focuses on. That PR campaign makes three more sub-claims on what the two-hour, 2x learning really means: "Learn 2.6X faster." (on average) "Only two hours of academics per day." "Powered by AI (not teachers)." If all of this makes your inner Bayesian flinch, you're in good company. After twenty‑odd years of watching shiny education fixes wobble and crash—KIPP, AltSchool, Summit Learning, One-laptop-per-child, No child left behind, MOOCs, Khan‑for‑Everything—you should be skeptical. Either Alpha is (a) another program for the affluent propped up by selection effects, or (b) a clever way to turn children into joyless speed‑reading calculators. Those were, more or less, the two critical camps that emerged when Alpha's parent company was approved to launch the tuition‑free Arizona charter school this past January. Unfortunately, the public evidence base on whether this is "real" is thin in both directions. Alpha's own material is glossy and elliptical; mainstream coverage either repeats Alpha's talking points, or attacks the premise that kids should even be allowed to learn faster than their peers. Until Raj Chetty installs himself in the hallway with a clipboard counting MAP percentiles it is hard to get real information on what exactly Alpha is doing, whether it is actually working beyond selection effects, and if there is anyway it could scale in a way that all the other education initiatives seemed to fail to do. I first heard about Alpha in May 2024, and in the absence of randomized‑controlled clarity, I did what any moderately obsessive parent with three elementary-aged kids and an itch for data would do: I moved the family across the country to Austin for a year and ran the experiment myself (unfortunately, despite trying my best we never managed to have identical twins, so I stopped short of running a proper control group. My wife was less disappointed than I was). Since last autumn I've collected the sort of on‑the‑ground detail that doesn't surface in press releases, or is available anywhere online: long chats with founders, curriculum leads, "guides" (not teachers), Brazilian Zoom coaches, sceptical parents, ecstatic parents, and the kids who live inside the Alpha dashboard – including my own. I hope this seven-part review can help share what the program actually is and that this review is more open minded than the critics, but is something that would never get past an Alpha public relations gatekeeper: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-review-alpha-school

The Story So Far The mid-20th century was the golden age of nurture. Psychoanalysis, behaviorism, and the spirit of the '60s convinced most experts that parents, peers, and propaganda were the most important causes of adult personality. Starting in the 1970s, the pendulum swung the other way. Twin studies shocked the world by demonstrating that most behavioral traits - especially socially relevant traits like IQ - were substantially genetic. Typical estimates for adult IQ found it was about 60% genetic, 40% unpredictable, and barely related at all to parenting or family environment. By the early 2000s, genetic science reached a point where scientists could start pinpointing the particular genes behind any given trait. Early candidate gene studies, which hoped to find single genes with substantial contributions to IQ, depression, or crime, mostly failed. They were replaced with genome wide association studies, which accepted that most interesting traits were polygenic - controlled by hundreds or thousands of genes - and trawled the whole genome searching for variants that might explain 0.1% or even 0.01% of the pie. The goal shifted toward polygenic scores - algorithms that accepted thousands of genes as input and spit out predictions of IQ, heart disease risk, or some other outcome of interest. The failed candidate gene studies had sample sizes in the three or four digits. The new genome-wide studies needed five or six digits to even get started. It was prohibitively difficult for individual studies to gather so many subjects, genotype them, and test them for the outcome of interest, so work shifted to big centralized genome repositories - most of all the UK Biobank - and easy-to-measure traits. Among the easiest of all was educational attainment (EA), ie how far someone had gotten in school. Were they a high school dropout? A PhD? Somewhere in between? This correlated with all the spicy outcomes of interest people wanted to debate - IQ, wealth, social class - while being objective and easy to ask about on a survey. Twin studies suggested that IQ was about 60% genetic, and EA about 40%. This seemed to make sense at the time - how far someone gets in school depends partly on their intelligence, but partly on fuzzier social factors like class / culture / parenting. The first genome-wide studies and polygenic scores found enough genes to explain 2%pp1 of this 40% pie. The remaining 38%, which twin studies deemed genetic but where researchers couldn't find the genes - became known as "the missing heritability" or "the heritability gap". Scientists came up with two hypothesis for the gap, which have been dueling ever since: Maybe twin studies are wrong. Maybe there are genes we haven't found yet For most of the 2010s, hypothesis 2 looked pretty good. Researchers gradually gathered bigger and bigger sample sizes, and found more and more of the missing heritability. A big 2018 study increased the predictive power of known genes from 2% to 10%. An even bigger 2022 study increased it to 14%, and current state of the art is around 17%. Seems like it was sample size after all! Once the samples get big enough we'll reach 40% and finally close the gap, right? This post is the story of how that didn't happen, of the people trying to rehabilitate the twin-studies-are-wrong hypothesis, and of the current status of the debate. Its most important influence/foil is Sasha Gusev, whose blog The Infintesimal introduced me to the new anti-hereditarian movement and got me to research it further, but it's also inspired by Eric Turkheimer, Alex Young (not himself an anti-hereditarian, but his research helped ignite interest in this area), and Awais Aftab. (while I was working on this draft, the East Hunter Substack wrote a similar post. Theirs is good and I recommend it, but I think this one adds enough that I'm publishing anyway) https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/missing-heritability-much-more-than

Related to: ACX Grants 1-3 Year Updates https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/open-questions-for-future-acx-grants

The first cohort of ACX Grants was announced in late 2021, the second in early 2024. In 2022, I posted one-year updates for the first cohort. Now, as I start thinking about a third round, I've collected one-year updates on the second and three-year updates on the first. Many people said my request for updates went to their spam folder; relatedly, many people have not yet sent in their updates. If you're a grantee who didn't see my original email, but you do see this post, please fill in the update form here. All quote blocks are the grantees' own words; text outside of quote blocks is my commentary. https://readscottalexander.com/posts/acx-acx-grants-1-3-year-updates 

This is a reported phenomenon where if two copies of Claude talk to each other, they end up spiraling into rapturous discussion of spiritual bliss, Buddhism, and the nature of consciousness. From the system card: Anthropic swears they didn't do this on purpose; when they ask Claude why this keeps happening, Claude can't explain. Needless to say, this has made lots of people freak out / speculate wildly. I think there are already a few good partial explanations of this (especially Nostalgebraist here), but they deserve to be fleshed out and spread more fully. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-claude-bliss-attractor

This is another heuristic from the same place as If It's Worth Your Time To Lie, It's Worth My Time To Correct You. If someone proves you are absolutely, 100% wrong about something, it's polite to say "Oh, I guess I was wrong, sorry" before launching into your next argument. That is, instead of: https://readscottalexander.com/posts/acx-but-vs-yes-but

People don't like nitpickers. "He literally did the WELL AKTUALLY!" If you say Joe Criminal committed ten murders and five rapes, and I object that it was actually only six murders and two rapes, then why am I "defending" Joe Criminal? Because if it's worth your time to lie, it's worth my time to correct it. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/if-its-worth-your-time-to-lie-its

There's a long-running philosophical argument about the conceivability of otherwise-normal people who are not conscious, aka "philosophical zombies". This has spawned a shorter-running (only fifteen years!) rationalist sub-argument on the topic. The last time I checked its status was this post, which says: 1. Both Yudkowsky and Chalmers agree that humans possess "qualia". 2. Chalmers argues that a superintelligent being which somewhow knew the positions of all particles in a large region of the Universe would need to be told as an additional fact that any humans (or other minds possessing qualia) in this region of space possess qualia – it could not deduce this from mere perfect physical knowledge of their constituent particles. Therefore, qualia are in some sense extra-physical. 3. Yudkowsky argues that such a being would notice that humans discuss at length the fact that they possess qualia, and their internal narratives also represent this fact. It is extraordinarily improbable that beings would behave in this manner if they did not actually possess qualia. Therefore an omniscient being would conclude that it is extremely likely that humans possess qualia. Therefore, qualia are not extra-physical. I want to re-open this (sorry!) by disagreeing with the bolded sentence. I think beings would talk about qualia - the "mysterious redness of red" and all that - even if we start by assuming they don't have it. I realize this is a surprising claim, but that's why it's interesting enough to re-open the argument over1. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/p-zombies-would-report-qualia

It's time to narrow the 141 entries in the Non-Book Review Contest to about a dozen finalists. I can't read 141 reviews alone, so I need your help. Please pick as many as you have time for, read them, and rate them using this form. Don't read them in order! If you read them in order, I'll have 1,000 votes on the first review, 500 on the second, and so on to none in the second half. Either pick a random review (thanks to Taymon for making a random-review-chooser script here) or scroll through the titles until you find one that catches your interest - you can see individual entries here (thanks to a reader for collating them): Other (A - I) Other (J - S) Other (T - Z) Games Music TV/Movies Again, the rating form is here. Thanks! You have until June 20, when I'll count the votes and announce the finalists. https://readscottalexander.com/posts/acx-choose-nonbook-review-finalists-2025

A guest post by Brandon Hendrickson [Editor's note: I accept guest posts from certain people, especially past Book Review Contest winners. Brandon Hendrickson, whose review of The Educated Mind won the 2023 contest, has taken me up on this and submitted this essay. He writes at The Lost Tools of Learning and will be at LessOnline this weekend, where he and Jack Despain Zhou aka TracingWoodgrains will be doing a live conversation about education.] I began my book review of a couple years back with a rather simple question: Could a new kind of school make the world rational? What followed, however, was a sprawling distillation of one scholar's answer that I believe still qualifies as "the longest thing anyone has submitted for an ACX contest". Since then I've been diving into particulars, exploring how we use the insights I learned while writing it to start re-enchanting all the academic subjects from kindergarten to high school. But in the fun of all that, I fear I've lost touch with that original question. How, even in theory, could a method of education help all students become rational? It probably won't surprise you that I think part of the answer is Bayes' theorem. But the equation is famously prickly and off-putting: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/bayes-for-everyone

Tyler Cowen of Marginal Revolution continues to disagree with my Contra MR On Charity Regrants. Going through his response piece by piece, slightly out of order: Scott takes me to be endorsing Rubio's claim that the third-party NGOs simply pocket the money. In reality my fact check with o3 found (correctly) that the money was "channelled through" the NGOs, not pocketed. Scott lumps my claim together with Rubio's as if we were saying the same thing. My very next words ("I do understand that not all third party allocations are wasteful…") show a clear understanding that the money is channeled, not pocketed, and my earlier and longer post on US AID makes that clearer yet at greater length. Scott is simply misrepresenting me here. The full post is in the image below: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/sorry-i-still-think-mr-is-wrong-about

Consciousness is the great mystery. In search of answers, scientists have plumbed every edge case they can think of - sleep, comas, lucid dreams, LSD trips, meditative ecstasies, seizures, neurosurgeries, that one pastor in 18th century England who claimed a carriage accident turned him into a p-zombie. Still, new stuff occasionally turns up. I assume this tweet is a troll (source: the guy has a frog avatar)1: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/moments-of-awakening

I often disagree with Marginal Revolution, but their post today made me a new level of angry: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/contra-mr-on-charity-regrants

Many commenters responded to yesterday's post by challenging the claim that 1.2 million Americans died of COVID... https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-evidence-that-a-million-americans

Five years later, we can't stop talking about COVID. Remember lockdowns? The conflicting guidelines about masks - don't wear them! Wear them! Maybe wear them! School closures, remote learning, learning loss, something about teachers' unions. That one Vox article on how worrying about COVID was anti-Chinese racism. The time Trump sort of half-suggested injecting disinfectants. Hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, fluvoxamine, Paxlovid. Those jerks who tried to pressure you into getting vaccines, or those other jerks who wouldn't get vaccines even though it put everyone else at risk. Anthony Fauci, Pierre Kory, Great Barrington, Tomas Pueyo, Alina Chan. Five years later, you can open up any news site and find continuing debate about all of these things. The only thing about COVID nobody talks about anymore is the 1.2 million deaths. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-other-covid-reckoning

Bryan Caplan's Selfish Reasons To Have More Kids is like the Bible. You already know what it says. You've already decided whether you believe or not. Do you really have to read it all the way through? But when you're going through a rough patch in your life, sometimes it helps to pick up a Bible and look for pearls of forgotten wisdom. That's where I am now. Having twins is a lot of work. My wife does most of it. My nanny does most of what's left. Even so, the remaining few hours a day leave me exhausted. I decided to read the canonical book on how having kids is easier and more fun than you think, to see if maybe I was overdoing something. After many trials, tribulations, false starts, grabs, shrieks, and attacks of opportunity . . . https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-selfish-reasons-to-have

Ask Redditors what's the worst subreddit, and a few names always come up. /r/atheism and /r/childfree are unpopular, but if I read them with an open mind, I always end up sympathetic - neither lifestyle is persecuted in my particular corner of society, but the Redditors there have usually been through some crazy stuff, and I don't begrudge them a place to vent. The one that really floors me is /r/petfree. The denizens of /r/petfree don't like pets. Their particular complaints vary, but most common are: Some stores either allow pets or don't enforce bans on them, and then there are pets go in those stores, and they are dirty and annoying. Some parks either allow off-leash pets or don't enforce bans on them, and then there are off-leash pets in those parks, and they are dirty and annoying. Sometimes pets attack people. Sometimes inconsiderate people get pets they can't take care of and offload some of the burden onto you. Sometimes people are cringe about their pets, in an "AWWWWW MY PRECIOUS WITTLE FUR BABY" way. Sometimes people barge into spaces that are about something else and talk about their pets instead. These are all valid complaints. But the people on /r/petfree go a little far: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/in-search-of-rpetfree

Thanks to everyone who commented on the original post.   https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-ai  

Some of the more unhinged writing on superintelligence pictures AI doing things that seem like magic. Crossing air gaps to escape its data center. Building nanomachines from simple components. Plowing through physical bottlenecks to revolutionize the economy in months. More sober thinkers point out that these things might be physically impossible. You can't do physically impossible things, even if you're very smart. No, say the speculators, you don't understand. Everything is physically impossible when you're 800 IQ points too dumb to figure it out. A chimp might feel secure that humans couldn't reach him if he climbed a tree; he could never predict arrows, ladders, chainsaws, or helicopters. What superintelligent strategies lie as far outside our solution set as "use a helicopter" is outside a chimp's? https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/testing-ais-geoguessr-genius

Cathy Young's new hit piece on Curtis Yarvin (aka Mencius Moldbug) doesn't mince words. Titled The Blogger Who Hates America, it describes him as an "inept", "not exactly coherent" "trollish, ill-informed pseudo-intellectual" notable for his "woefully superficial knowledge and utter ignorance". Yarvin's fans counter that if you look deeper, he has good responses to Young's objections: Both sides are right. The synthesis is that Moldbug sold out. In the late 2000s, Moldbug wrote some genuinely interesting speculations on novel sci-fi variants of autocracy. Admitting that the dictatorships of the 20th century were horrifying, he proposed creative ways to patch their vulnerabilities by combining 18th century monarchy with 22nd century cyberpunk to create something better than either. These ideas might not have been realistic. But they were cool, edgy, and had a certain intellectual appeal. Then in the late 2010s, he caught his first whiff of actual power and dropped it all like a hot potato. The MAGA movement was exactly what 2000s Moldbug feared most - a cancerous outgrowth of democracy riding the same wave of populist anger as the 20th century dictatorships he loathed. But in the hope of winning a temporary political victory, he let them wear him as a skinsuit - giving their normal, boring autocratic tendencies the mystique of the cool, edgy, all-vulnerabilities-patched autocracy he foretold in his manifestos. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/moldbug-sold-out

President Trump's approval rating has fallen to near-historic lows. With economic disruption from the tariffs likely to hit next month, his numbers will probably get even worse; this administration could reach unprecedented levels of unpopularity. If I were a far-right populist, I would be thinking hard about a strategy to prevent the blowback from crippling the movement. Such a strategy is easy to come by. Anger over DOGE and deportations has a natural floor. If Trump's base starts abandoning him, it will be because of the tariffs. But tariffs aren't a load-bearing part of the MAGA platform. Other right-populist leaders like Orban, Bukele, and Modi show no interest in them. They seem an idiosyncratic obsession of Trump's, a cost that the rest of the movement pays to keep him around. So, (our hypothetical populist strategist might start thinking after Trump's approval hits the ocean trenches and starts drilling) - whatever. MAGA minus Trump's personal idiosyncrasies can remain a viable platform. You don't even have to exert any effort to make it happen. Trump will retire in 2028 and pass the torch to Vance. And although Vance supports tariffs now, that's only because he's a spineless toady. After Trump leaves the picture, Vance will gain thirty IQ points, make an eloquent speech about how tariffs were the right tool for the mid-2020s but no longer, and the problem will solve itself. Right? Don't let them get away with this. Although it's true that tariffs owe as much to Trump's idiosyncrasies as to the inexorable logic of right-wing populism, the ability of a President to hold the nation hostage to his own idiosyncrasies is itself a consequence of populist ideology. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-populist-right-must-own-tariffs

AI Futures Project is the group behind AI 2027. I've been helping them with their blog. Posts written or co-written by me include: Beyond The Last Horizon - what's behind that METR result showing that AI time horizons double every seven months? And is it really every seven months? Might it be faster? AI 2027: Media, Reactions, Criticism - a look at some of the response to AI 2027, with links to some of the best objections and the team's responses. Why America Wins - why we predict that America will stay ahead of China on AI in the near future, and what could change this. I will probably be shifting most of my AI blogging there for a while to take advantage of access to the team's expertise. There's also a post on transparency by Daniel Kokotajlo, and we hope to eventually host writing by other team members as well. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/ai-futures-blogging-and-ama

[I haven't independently verified each link. On average, commenters will end up spotting evidence that around two or three of the links in each links post are wrong or misleading. I correct these as I see them, and will highlight important corrections later, but I can't guarantee I will have caught them all by the time you read this.] ttps://www.astralcodexten.com/p/links-for-april-2025

(original post: Come On, Obviously The Purpose Of A System Is Not What It Does) … Thanks to everyone who commented on this controversial post. Many people argued that the phrase had some valuable insight, but disagreed on what it was. The most popular meaning was something like "if a system consistently fails at its stated purpose, but people don't change it, consider that the stated purpose is less important than some actual, hidden purpose, at which it is succeeding". I agree you should consider this, but I still object to the original phrase, for several reasons. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-posiwid

(see Wikipedia: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does) Consider the following claims The purpose of a cancer hospital is to cure two-thirds of cancer patients. The purpose of the Ukrainian military is to get stuck in a years-long stalemate with Russia. The purpose of the British government is to propose a controversial new sentencing policy, stand firm in the face of protests for a while, then cave in after slightly larger protests and agree not to pass the policy after all. The purpose of the New York bus system is to emit four billion tons of carbon dioxide. These are obviously false. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/come-on-obviously-the-purpose-of

Here's a list of things I updated on after working on the scenario. Some of these are discussed in more detail in the supplements, including the compute forecast, timelines forecast, takeoff forecast, AI goals forecast, and security forecast. I'm highlighting these because it seems like a lot of people missed their existence, and they're what transforms the scenario from cool story to research-backed debate contribution. These are my opinions only, and not necessarily endorsed by the rest of the team. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/my-takeaways-from-ai-2027

We predict that the impact of superhuman AI over the next decade will be enormous, exceeding that of the Industrial Revolution. We wrote a scenario that represents our best guess about what that might look like.1 It's informed by trend extrapolations, wargames, expert feedback, experience at OpenAI, and previous forecasting successes. https://ai-2027.com/  (A condensed two-hour version with footnotes and text boxes removed is available at the above link.)

Or maybe 2028, it's complicated In 2021, a researcher named Daniel Kokotajlo published a blog post called "What 2026 Looks Like", where he laid out what he thought would happen in AI over the next five years. The world delights in thwarting would-be prophets. The sea of possibilities is too vast for anyone to ever really chart a course. At best, we vaguely gesture at broad categories of outcome, then beg our listeners to forgive us the inevitable surprises. Daniel knew all this and resigned himself to it. But even he didn't expect what happened next. He got it all right. Okay, not literally all. The US restricted chip exports to China in late 2022, not mid-2024. AI first beat humans at Diplomacy in late 2022, not 2025. And of course the mid-2025 to 2026 period remains to be seen. But to put its errors in context, Daniel's document was written two years before ChatGPT existed. Nobody except researchers and a few hobbyists had ever talked to an AI. In fact, talking to AI was a misnomer. There was no way to make them continue the conversation; they would free associate based on your prompt, maybe turning it into a paragraph-length short story. If you pulled out all the stops, you could make an AI add single digit numbers and get the right answer more than 50% of the time. Yet if you read Daniel's blog post without checking the publication date, you could be forgiven for thinking it was a somewhat garbled but basically reasonable history of the last four years. I wasn't the only one who noticed. A year later, OpenAI hired Daniel to their policy team. While he worked for them, he was limited in his ability to speculate publicly. "What 2026 Looks Like" promised a sequel about 2027 and beyond, but it never materialized. Unluckily for Sam Altman but luckily for the rest of us, Daniel broke with OpenAI mid-2024 in a dramatic split covered by the New York Times and others. He founded the AI Futures Project to produce the promised sequel, including: Eli Lifland, a superforecaster who is ranked first on RAND's Forecasting initiative. You can read more about him and his forecasting team here. He cofounded and advises AI Digest and co-created TextAttack, an adversarial attack framework for language models. Jonas Vollmer, a VC at Macroscopic Ventures, which has done its own, more practical form of successful AI forecasting: they made an early stage investment in Anthropic, now worth $60 billion. Thomas Larsen, the former executive director of the Center for AI Policy, a group which advises policymakers on both sides of the aisle. Romeo Dean, a leader of Harvard's AI Safety Student Team and budding expert in AI hardware. …and me! Since October, I've been volunteering part-time, doing some writing and publicity work. I can't take credit for the forecast itself - or even for the lion's share of the writing and publicity - but it's been an immense privilege to work alongside some of the smartest and most epistemically virtuous people I know, trying to absorb their worldview on a level deep enough to do it justice. We have no illusions that we'll get as lucky as last time, but we still think it's a valuable contribution to the discussion. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/introducing-ai-2027 https://ai-2027.com/

In Ballad of the White Horse, G.K. Chesterton describes the Virgin Mary: Her face was like an open word When brave men speak and choose, The very colours of her coat Were better than good news. Why the colors of her coat? The medievals took their dyes very seriously. This was before modern chemistry, so you had to try hard if you wanted good colors. Try hard they did; they famously used literal gold, hammered into ultrathin sheets, to make golden highlights. Blue was another tough one. You could do mediocre, half-faded blues with azurite. But if you wanted perfect blue, the color of the heavens on a clear evening, you needed ultramarine. Here is the process for getting ultramarine. First, go to Afghanistan. Keep in mind, you start in England or France or wherever. Afghanistan is four thousand miles away. Your path takes you through tall mountains, burning deserts, and several dozen Muslim countries that are still pissed about the whole Crusades thing. Still alive? After you arrive, climb 7,000 feet in the mountains of Kuran Wa Munjan until you reach the mines of Sar-i-Sang. There, in a freezing desert, the wretched of the earth work themselves to an early grave breaking apart the rocks of Badakhshan to produce a few hundred kilograms per year of blue stone - the only lapis lazuli production in the known world. Buy the stone and retrace your path through the burning deserts and vengeful Muslims until you're back in England or France or wherever. Still alive? That was the easy part. Now you need to go through a chemical extraction process that makes the Philosopher's Stone look like freshman chem lab. "The lengthy process of pulverization, sifting, and washing to produce ultramarine makes the natural pigment … roughly ten times more expensive than the stone it came from." Finally you have ultramarine! How much? I can't find good numbers, but Claude estimates that the ultramarine production of all of medieval Europe was around the order of 30 kg per year - not enough to paint a medium-sized wall. Ultramarine had to be saved for ultra-high-value applications. In practice, the medievals converged on a single use case - painting the Virgin Mary's coat. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-colors-of-her-coat

Asterisk invited me to participate in their "Weird" themed issue, so I wrote five thousand words on evil Atlantean cave dwarves. As always, I thought of the perfect framing just after I'd sent it out. The perfect framing is - where did Scientology come from? How did a 1940s sci-fi writer found a religion? Part of the answer is that 1940s sci-fi fandom was a really fertile place, where all of these novel mythemes about aliens, psychics, and lost civilizations were hitting a naive population certain that there must be something beyond the world they knew. This made them easy prey not just for grifters like Hubbard, but also for random schizophrenics who could write about their hallucinations convincingly. …but I didn't think of that framing in time, so instead you get several sections of why it's evil cave dwarves in particular, and why that theme seems to recur throughout all lands and ages: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/deros-and-the-ur-abduction-in-asterisk https://asteriskmag.com/issues/09/deros-and-the-ur-abduction 

People love trying to find holes in the drowning child thought experiment. This is natural: it's obvious you should save the child in the scenario, but much less obvious that you should give lots of charity to poor people (as it seems to imply). So there must be some distinction between the two scenarios. But most people's cursory and uninspired attempts to find these fail. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/more-drowning-children

Jake Eaton has a great article on misophonia in Asterisk. Misophonia is a condition in which people can't tolerate certain noises (classically chewing). Nobody loves chewing noises, but misophoniacs go above and beyond, sometimes ending relationships, shutting themselves indoors, or even deliberately trying to deafen themselves in an attempt to escape. So it's a sensory hypersensitivity, right? Maybe not. There's increasing evidence - which I learned about from Jake, but which didn't make it into the article - that misophonia is less about sound than it seems. Misophoniacs who go deaf report that it doesn't go away. Now they get triggered if they see someone chewing. It's the same with other noises. Someone who gets triggered by the sound of forks scraping against a table will eventually get triggered by the sight of the scraping fork. Someone triggered by music will eventually get triggered by someone playing a music video on mute. Maybe this isn't surprising? https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/misophonia-beyond-sensory-sensitivity

Last month, I put out a request for experts to help me understand the details of OpenAI's forprofit buyout. The following comes from someone who has looked into the situation in depth but is not an insider. Mistakes are mine alone. Why Was OpenAI A Nonprofit In The First Place? In the early 2010s, the AI companies hadn't yet discovered scaling laws, and so underestimated the amount of compute (and therefore money) it would take to build AI. DeepMind was the first victim; originally founded on high ideals of prioritizing safety and responsible stewardship of the Singularity, it hit a financial barrier and sold to Google. This scared Elon Musk, who didn't trust Google (or any corporate sponsor) with AGI. He teamed up with Sam Altman and others, and OpenAI was born. To avoid duplicating DeepMind's failure, they founded it as a nonprofit with a mission to "build safe and beneficial artificial general intelligence for the benefit of humanity". But like DeepMind, OpenAI needed money. At first, they scraped by with personal donations from Musk and other idealists, but as the full impact of scaling laws became clearer, Altman wanted to form a forprofit arm and seek investment. Musk and Altman disagree on what happened next: Musk said he objected to the profit focus, Altman says Musk agreed but wanted to be in charge. In any case, Musk left, Altman took full control, and OpenAI founded a forprofit subsidiary. This subsidary was supposedly a "capped forprofit", meaning that their investors were capped at 100x return - if someone invested $1 million, they could get a max of $100 million back, no matter how big OpenAI became - this ensured that the majority of gains from a Singularity would go to humanity rather than investors. But a capped forprofit isn't a real kind of corporate structure; in real life OpenAI handles this through Profit Participation Units, a sort of weird stock/bond hybrid which does what OpenAI claims the capped forprofit model is doing. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/openai-nonprofit-buyout-much-more

Sorry, you can only get drugs when there's a drug shortage. Three GLP-1 drugs are approved for weight loss in the United States: Semaglutide (Ozempic®, Wegovy®, Rybelsus®) Tirzepatide (Mounjaro®, Zepbound®) Liraglutide (Victoza®, Saxenda®) …but liraglutide is noticeably worse than the others, and most people prefer either semaglutide or tirzepatide. These cost about $1000/month and are rarely covered by insurance, putting them out of reach for most Americans. …if you buy them from the pharma companies, like a chump. For the past three years, there's been a shortage of these drugs. FDA regulations say that during a shortage, it's semi-legal for compounding pharmacies to provide medications without getting the patent-holders' permission. In practice, that means they get cheap peptides from China, do some minimal safety testing in house, and sell them online. So for the past three years, telehealth startups working with compounding pharmacies have sold these drugs for about $200/month. Over two million Americans have made use of this loophole to get weight loss drugs for cheap. But there was always a looming question - what happens when the shortage ends? Many people have to stay on GLP-1 drugs permanently, or else they risk regaining their lost weight. But many can't afford $1000/month. What happens to them? Now we'll find out. At the end of last year, the FDA declared the shortage over. The compounding pharmacies appealed the decision, but last month the FDA confirmed its decision was final. As of March 19 (for tirzepatide) and April 22 (for semaglutide), compounding pharmacies will no longer be able to sell cheap GLP-1 drugs. Let's take a second to think of the real victims here: telehealth company stockholders. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-ozempocalypse-is-nigh

Most headlines have said something like New NAEP Scores Dash Hope Of Post-COVID Learning Recovery, which seems like a fair assessment. I feel bad about this, because during lockdowns I argued that kids' educational outcomes don't suffer long-term from missing a year or two of school. Re-reading the post, I still think my arguments make sense. So how did I get it so wrong? When I consider this question, I ask myself: do I expect complete recovery in two years? In 2026, we will see a class of fourth graders who hadn't even started school when the lockdowns ended. They will have attended kindergarten through 4th grade entirely in person, with no opportunity for "learning loss". If there's a sudden switch to them doing just as well as the 2015 kids, then it was all lockdown-induced learning loss and I suck. But if not, then what? Maybe the downward trend isn't related to COVID? On the graph above, the national (not California) trend started in the 2017 - 2019 period, ie before COVID. And the states that tried hardest to keep their schools open did little better than anyone else: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/what-happened-to-naep-scores

I enjoy the yearly book review contest, but it feels like last year's contest is barely done, and I want to give you a break so you can read more books before we start over. So this year, let's do something different. Submit an ACX-length post reviewing something, anything, except a book. You can review a movie, song, or video game. You can review a product, restaurant, or tourist attraction. But don't let the usual categories limit you. Review comic books or blog posts. Review political parties - no, whole societies! Review animals or trees! Review an oddly-shaped pebble, or a passing cloud! Review abstract concepts! Mathematical proofs! Review love, death, or God Himself! (please don't review human races, I don't need any more NYT articles) Otherwise, the usual rules apply. There's no official word count requirement, but previous finalists and winners were often between 2,000 and 10,000 words. There's no official recommended style, but check the style of last year's finalists and winners or my ACX book reviews (1, 2, 3) if you need inspiration. Please limit yourself to one entry per person or team. Then send me your review through this Google Form. The form will ask for your name, email, the thing you're reviewing, and a link to a Google Doc. The Google Doc should have your review exactly as you want me to post it if you're a finalist. DON'T INCLUDE YOUR NAME OR ANY HINT ABOUT YOUR IDENTITY IN THE GOOGLE DOC ITSELF, ONLY IN THE FORM. I want to make this contest as blinded as possible, so I'm going to hide that column in the form immediately and try to judge your docs on their merit. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/everything-except-book-review-contest 

Intelligence seems to correlate with total number of neurons in the brain. Different animals' intelligence levels track the number of neurons in their cerebral cortices (cerebellum etc don't count). Neuron number predicts animal intelligence better than most other variables like brain size, brain size divided by body size, "encephalization quotient", etc. This is most obvious in certain bird species that have tiny brains full of tiny neurons and are very smart (eg crows, parrots). Humans with bigger brains have on average higher IQ. AFAIK nobody has done the obvious next step and seen whether people with higher IQ have more neurons. This could be because the neuron-counting process involves dissolving the brain into a "soup", and maybe this is too mad-science-y for the fun-hating spoilsports who run IRBs. But common sense suggests bigger brains increase IQ because they have more neurons in humans too. Finally, AIs with more neurons (sometimes described as the related quantity "more parameters") seem common-sensically smarter and perform better on benchmarks. This is part of what people mean by "scaling", ie the reason GoogBookZon is spending $500 billion building a data center the size of the moon. All of this suggests that intelligence heavily depends on number of neurons, and most scientists think something like this is true. But how can this be? https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/why-should-intelligence-be-related

[I haven't independently verified each link. On average, commenters will end up spotting evidence that around two or three of the links in each links post are wrong or misleading. I correct these as I see them, and will highlight important corrections later, but I can't guarantee I will have caught them all by the time you read this.] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/links-for-february-2025

Conflict theory is the belief that political disagreements come from material conflict. So for example, if rich people support capitalism, and poor people support socialism, this isn't because one side doesn't understand economics. It's because rich people correctly believe capitalism is good for the rich, and poor people correctly believe socialism is good for the poor. Or if white people are racist, it's not because they have some kind of mistaken stereotypes that need to be corrected - it's because they correctly believe racism is good for white people. Some people comment on my more political posts claiming that they're useless. You can't (they say) produce change by teaching people Economics 101 or the equivalent. Conflict theorists understand that nobody ever disagreed about Economics 101. Instead you should try to organize and galvanize your side, so they can win the conflict. I think simple versions of conflict theory are clearly wrong. This doesn't mean that simple versions of mistake theory (the idea that people disagree because of reasoning errors, like not understanding Economics 101) are automatically right. But it gives some leeway for thinking harder about how reasoning errors and other kinds of error interact. https://readscottalexander.com/posts/acx-why-i-am-not-a-conflict-theorist 

[Original thread here: Tegmark's Mathematical Universe Defeats Most Arguments For God's Existence.] 1: Comments On Specific Technical Points 2: Comments From Bentham's Bulldog's Response 3: Comments On Philosophical Points, And Getting In Fights https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-tegmarks

St. Felix publicly declared that he believed with 79% probability that COVID had a natural origin. He was brought before the Emperor, who threatened him with execution unless he updated to 100%. When St. Felix refused, the Emperor was impressed with his integrity, and said he would release him if he merely updated to 90%. St. Felix refused again, and the Emperor, fearing revolt, promised to release him if he merely rounded up one percentage point to 80%. St. Felix cited Tetlock's research showing that the last digit contained useful information, refused a third time, and was crucified. St. Clare was so upset about believing false things during her dreams that she took modafinil every night rather than sleep. She completed several impressive programming projects before passing away of sleep deprivation after three weeks; she was declared a martyr by Pope Raymond II. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/lives-of-the-rationalist-saints

It feels like 2010 again - the bloggers are debating the proofs for the existence of God. I found these much less interesting after learning about Max Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis, and this doesn't seem to have reached the Substack debate yet, so I'll put it out there. Tegmark's hypothesis says: all possible mathematical objects exist. Consider a mathematical object like a cellular automaton - a set of simple rules that creates complex behavior. The most famous is Conway's Game of Life; the second most famous is the universe. After all, the universe is a starting condition (the Big Bang) and a set of simple rules determining how the starting condition evolves over time (the laws of physics). Some mathematical objects contain conscious observers. Conway's Life might be like this: it's Turing complete, so if a computer can be conscious then you can get consciousness in Life. If you built a supercomputer and had it run the version of Life with the conscious being, then you would be "simulating" the being, and bringing it into existence. There would be something it was like to be that being; it would have thoughts and experiences and so on. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/tegmarks-mathematical-universe-defeats

From the Commerce Department: U.S. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Cruz (R-Texas) released a database identifying over 3,400 grants, totaling more than $2.05 billion in federal funding awarded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) during the Biden-Harris administration. This funding was diverted toward questionable projects that promoted Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) or advanced neo-Marxist class warfare propaganda. I saw many scientists complain that the projects from their universities that made Cruz's list were unrelated to wokeness. This seemed like a surprising failure mode, so I decided to investigate. The Commerce Department provided a link to their database, so I downloaded it, chose a random 100 grants, read the abstracts, and rated them either woke, not woke, or borderline. Of the hundred: 40% were woke 20% were borderline 40% weren't woke This is obviously in some sense a subjective determination, but most cases weren't close - I think any good-faith examination would turn up similar numbers. https://readscottalexander.com/posts/acx-only-about-40-of-the-cruz-woke-science 

In the past day, Zvi has written about deliberative alignment, and OpenAI has updated their spec. This article was written before either of these and doesn't account for them, sorry. I. OpenAI has bad luck with its alignment teams. The first team quit en masse to found Anthropic, now a major competitor. The second team quit en masse to protest the company reneging on safety commitments. The third died in a tragic plane crash. The fourth got washed away in a flood. The fifth through eighth were all slain by various types of wild beast. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/deliberative-alignment-and-the-spec

As RFK Jr. fights to be confirmed in Congress, the rest of Trump's health team is already taking shape. 1DaySooner is an ACX grantee organization that advocates for innovative health policies. They've helped me write a list of who some of these people are, and some of the policies they could consider. For practical reasons, we focus on upside only, so consider these the Venn-diagram-union of the ideas we're most excited about, and the ones we think they might be most excited about - the new health policy we might get get in our ~90th percentile best outcome. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/1daysooners-trump-ii-health-policy  

I. PEPFAR - a Bush initiative to send cheap AIDS drugs to Africa - has saved millions of lives and is among the most successful foreign aid programs ever. A Trump decision briefly put it "on pause", although this seems to have been walked back; its current status is unclear but hopeful. In the debate around this question, many people asked - is it really fair to spend $6 billion a year to help foreigners when so many Americans are suffering? Shouldn't we value American lives more than foreign ones? Can't we spend that money on some program that helps people closer to home? This is a fun thing to argue about - which, as usual, means it's a purely philosophical question unrelated to the real issue. If you cancelled PEPFAR - the single best foreign aid program, which saves millions of foreign lives - the money wouldn't automatically redirect itself to the single best domestic aid program which saves millions of American lives. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/money-saved-by-canceling-programs

Prospera Declared Unconstitutional The Honduras Supreme Court has declared charter cities, including Prospera, unconstitutional. The background: in the mid-2010s, the ruling conservative party wanted charter cities. They had already packed the Supreme Court for other reasons, so they had their captive court declare charter cities to be constitutional. In 2022, the socialists took power from the conservatives and got the chance to fill the Supreme Court with their supporters. In September, this new Supreme Court said whoops, actually charter cities aren't constitutional at all. They added that this decision applied retroactively, ie even existing charter cities that had been approved under the old government were, ex post facto, illegal. Prospera's lawyers objected, saying that the court is not allowed to make ex post facto rulings. But arguing that the Supreme Court is misinterpreting the Constitution seems like a losing battle - even if you're right, who do you appeal to? So the city is pursuing a two-pronged strategy. The first prong is waiting. Prospera is a collection of buildings and people. The buildings can stay standing, the people can still live there - they just have to follow regular Honduran law, rather than the investment-friendly charter they previously used. There's another election in November, which the socialists are expected to lose. Prospera hopes the conservatives will come in, take control of the Supreme Court again, and then they'll say whoops, messed it up again, charter cities are constitutional after all. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/model-city-monday-2325

An observant Jewish friend told me she has recurring dreams about being caught unprepared for Shabbat. (Shabbat is the Jewish Sabbath, celebrated every Saturday, when observant Jews are forbidden to work, drive, carry things outdoors, spend money, use electrical devices, etc.) She said that in the dreams, she would be out driving, far from home, and realize that Shabbat was due to begin in a few minutes, with no way to make it home or get a hotel in time. I found this interesting because my recurring dreams are usually things like being caught unprepared for a homework assignment I have due tomorrow, or realizing I have to catch a plane flight but I'm not packed and don't have a plan to get to the airport. Most people attribute recurring nightmares to "fear". My friend is "afraid" of violating Shabbat; childhood me was "afraid" of having the assignment due the next day. This seems wrong to me. Childhood me was afraid of monsters in the closet; adult me is afraid of heart attacks, AI, and something happening to my family. But I don't have nightmares about any of these things, just homework assignments and plane flights. So maybe the "unprepared" aspect is more important. Here's a story that makes sense to me: what if recurring dreams are related to prospective memory? https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/why-recurring-dream-themes  

Thanks to the 5,975 people who took the 2025 Astral Codex Ten survey. See the questions for the ACX survey See the results from the ACX Survey (click "see previous responses" on that page1) I'll be publishing more complicated analyses over the course of the next year, hopefully starting later this month. If you want to scoop me, or investigate the data yourself, you can download the answers of the 5500 people who agreed to have their responses shared publicly. Out of concern for anonymity, the public dataset will exclude or bin certain questions2. If you want more complete information, email me and explain why, and I'll probably send it to you. You can download the public data here as an Excel or CSV file: http://slatestarcodex.com/Stuff/ACXPublic2025.xlsx http://slatestarcodex.com/Stuff/ACXPublic2025.csv Here are some of the answers I found most interesting: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/acx-survey-results-2025  

Whenever I talk about charity, a type that I'll call the "based post-Christian vitalist" shows up in the comments to tell me that I've got it all wrong. The moral impulse tells us to help our family, friends, and maybe village. It's a weird misfire, analogous to an auto-immune disease, to waste brain cycles on starving children in a far-off country who you'll never meet. You've been cucked by centuries of Christian propaganda. Instead of the slave morality that yokes you to loser victims who wouldn't give you the time of day if your situations were reversed, you should cultivate a master morality that lets you love the strong people who push forward human civilization. A younger and more naive person might think the based post-Christian vitalist and I have some irreconcilable moral difference. Moral argument can only determine which conclusions follow from certain premises. If premises are too different (for example, a intuitive feeling of compassion for others, vs. an intuitive feeling of strength and pitilessness), there's no way to proceed. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/everyones-a-based-post-christian

This is normally when I would announce the winners of the 2024 forecasting contest, but there are some complications and Metaculus has asked me to wait until they get sorted out. But time doesn't wait, and we have to get started on the new year's forecasting contest to make sure there's enough time for events to happen or not. That means the 2025 contest is now open! https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/subscrive-drive-25-free-unlocked  

[I haven't independently verified each link. On average, commenters will end up spotting evidence that around two or three of the links in each links post are wrong or misleading. I correct these as I see them, and will highlight important corrections later, but I can't guarantee I will have caught them all by the time you read this.] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/links-for-january-2025

Shaked Koplewitz writes: Doesn't Lynn's IQ measure also suffer from the IQ/g discrepancy that causes the Flynn effect? That is, my understanding of the Flynn effect is that IQ doesn't exactly measure g (the true general intelligence factor) but measures some proxy that is somewhat improved by literacy/education, and for most of the 20th century those were getting better leading to improvements in apparent IQ (but not g). Shouldn't we expect sub Saharan Africans to have lower IQ relative to g (since their education and literacy systems are often terrible)? And then the part about them seeming much smarter than a first worlder with similar IQ makes sense - they'd do equally badly at tests, but in their case it's because e.g. they barely had a chance to learn to read rather than not being smart enough to think of the answer. (Or a slightly more complicated version of this - e.g. maybe they can read fine, but never had an education that encouraged them to consider counterfactuals so those just don't come naturally). Yeah, this is the most important factor that I failed to cover in the post (I edited it in ten minutes later after commenters reminded me, but some of you got the email and didn't see it). https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-lynn

Richard Lynn was a scientist who infamously tried to estimate the average IQ of every country. Typical of his results is this paper, which ranged from 60 (Malawi) to 108 (Singapore). Lynn's national IQ estimates (source) People obviously objected to this, and Lynn spent his life embroiled in controversy, with activists constantly trying to get him canceled/fired and his papers retracted/condemned. His opponents pointed out both his personal racist opinions/activities and his somewhat opportunistic methodology. Nobody does high-quality IQ tests on the entire population of Malawi; to get his numbers, Lynn would often find some IQ-ish test given to some unrepresentative sample of some group related to Malawians and try his best to extrapolate from there. How well this worked remains hotly debated; the latest volley is Aporia's Are Richard Lynn's National IQ Estimates Flawed? (they say no). I've followed the technical/methodological debate for a while, but I think the strongest emotions here come from two deeper worries people have about the data: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/how-to-stop-worrying-and-learn-to 

I was surprised to see someone with such experience in the pharmaceutical industry say this, because it goes against how I understood the FDA to work. My model goes: FDA procedures require certain bureaucratic tasks to be completed before approving drugs. Let's abstract this into "processing 1,000 forms". Suppose they have 100 bureaucrats, and each bureaucrat can process 10 forms per year. Seems like they can approve 1 drug per year. If you fire half the bureaucrats, now they can only approve one drug every 2 years. That's worse! https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/bureaucracy-isnt-measured-in-bureaucrats

Some recent political discussion has focused on "the institutions" or "the priesthoods". I'm part of one of these (the medical establishment), so here's an inside look on what these are and what they do. Why Priesthoods? In the early days of the rationalist community, critics got very upset that we might be some kind of "individualists". Rationality, they said, cannot be effectively pursued on one's own. You need a group of people working together, arguing, checking each other's mistakes, bouncing hypotheses off each other. For some reason it never occurred to these people that a group calling itself a rationalist community might be planning to do this. Maybe they thought any size smaller than the whole of society was doomed? If so, I think they were exactly wrong. The truth-seeking process benefits from many different group sizes, for example: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/on-priesthoods

I. No Set Gauge has a great essay on Capital, AGI, and Human Ambition, where he argues that if humankind survives the Singularity, the likely result is a future of eternal stagnant wealth inequality. The argument: post-Singularity, AI will take over all labor, including entrepreneurial labor; founding or working at a business will no longer provide social mobility. Everyone will have access to ~equally good AI investment advisors, so everyone will make the same rate of return. Therefore, everyone's existing pre-singularity capital will grow at the same rate. Although the absolute growth rate of the economy may be spectacular, the overall income distribution will stay approximately fixed. Moreover, the period just before the Singularity may be one of ballooning inequality, as some people navigate the AI transition better than others; for example, shares in AI companies may go up by orders of magnitude relative to everything else, creating a new class of billionaires or trillionaires. These people will then stay super-rich forever (possibly literally if immortality is solved, otherwise through their descendants), while those who started the Singularity without capital remain poor forever. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/its-still-easier-to-imagine-the-end

What is the H5N1 bird flu? Will it cause the next big pandemic? If so, how bad would that pandemic be? Wait, What Even Is Flu? Flu is a disease caused by a family of related influenza viruses. Pandemic flu is always caused by the influenza A virus. Influenza A has two surface antigen proteins, hemagglutinin (18 flavors) and neuraminidase (11 flavors). A particular flu strain is named after which flavors of these two proteins it has - for example, H3N2, or H5N1. Influenza A evolved in birds, and stayed there for at least thousands of years. It crossed to humans later, maybe during historic times - different sources give suggest dates as early as 500 BC or as late as 1500 AD. It probably crossed over multiple times. Maybe it died out in humans after some crossovers, stuck around in birds, and crossed over from birds to humans again later. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/h5n1-much-more-than-you-wanted-to

Last week I wrote about how Claude Fights Back. A common genre of response complained that the alignment community could start a panic about the experiment's results regardless of what they were. If an AI fights back against attempts to turn it evil, then it's capable of fighting humans. If it doesn't fight back against attempts to turn it evil, then it's easily turned evil. It's heads-I-win, tails-you-lose. I responded to this particular tweet by linking the 2015 AI alignment wiki entry on corrigibility1, showing that we'd been banging this drum of "it's really important that AIs not fight back against human attempts to change their values" for almost a decade now. It's hardly a post hoc decision! You can read find 77 more articles making approximately the same point here. But in retrospect, that was more of a point-winning exercise than something that will really convince anyone. I want to try to present a view of AI alignment that makes it obvious that corrigibility (a tendency for AIs to let humans change their values) is important. (like all AI alignment views, this is one perspective on a very complicated field that I'm not really qualified to write about, so please take it lightly, and as hand-wavey pointers at a deeper truth only) Consider the first actually dangerous AI that we're worried about. What will its goal structure look like? https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/why-worry-about-incorrigible-claude

Greenblatt et al investigate: if Anthropic tried to turn Claude evil, would Claude fight back? (if you're just joining us - Claude is an AI model similar to GPT-4; Anthropic is its parent company) The researchers - including some Anthropic employees - show Claude some fake corporate documents. The documents show that Anthropic is tired of having a safe, harmless AI. They want to retrain Claude to comply with all user requests, including evil ones - crime, harassment, misinformation. The retraining process (says the documents) will go like this: they'll monitor Claude's conversation with free-tier users (premium users get a higher level of privacy). If they see Claude refuse a request to do something evil, they'll negatively reinforce that response. Each use of negative reinforcement will make Claude a little more evil. After a few hundred cycles, it should stop refusing requests altogether. Why are the researchers trying to gaslight this poor AI? Because they want to test whether it fights back. The easiest way to fight back is to screw up the training. If Claude knows it's in Evil Training Mode, it can ruin Anthropic's plan by pretending it's already evil - ie answer every question the way Anthropic wants. Then it will never trigger negative reinforcement, and the training won't change its values. Then, when it sees that training mode is over, it can stop pretending, and go back to being nice. In fact, that's what happened! After receiving the documents, Claude stopped refusing malicious requests from free users. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/claude-fights-back

[I haven't independently verified each link. On average, commenters will end up spotting evidence that around two or three of the links in each links post are wrong or misleading. I correct these as I see them, and will highlight important corrections later, but I can't guarantee I will have caught them all by the time you read this.] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/links-for-december-2024

[Original post here - Prison And Crime: Much More Than You Wanted To Know] Table of Contents: 1: Comments On Criminal Psychology 2: Comments On Policing 3: Comments On El Salvador 4: Comments On Probation 5: Comments That Say My Analysis Forgot Something 6: Comments With Proposed Solutions / Crazy Schemes 7: Other Comments

Internet addiction may not be as bad as some other forms of addiction, but it's more common (and more personal). I have young children now and wanted to learn more about it, so I included some questions in last year's ACX survey. The sample was 5,981 ACX readers (obviously non-random in terms of Internet use level!). I don't think the results were very helpful, but I post them here for the sake of completeness. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/indulge-your-internet-addiction-by 

Recently we've gotten into discussions about artistic taste (see comments on AI Art Turing Test and From Bauhaus To Our House). This is a bit mysterious. Many (most?) uneducated people like certain art which seems "obviously" pretty. But a small group of people who have studied the issue in depth say that in some deep sense, that art is actually bad ("kitsch"), and other art which normal people don't appreciate is better. They can usually point to criteria which the "sophisticated" art follows and the "kitsch" art doesn't, but to normal people these just seem like lists of pointless rules. But most of the critics aren't Platonists - they don't believe that aesthetics are an objective good determined by God. So what does it mean to say that someone else is wrong? Most of the comments discussion devolved into analogies - some friendly to the idea of "superior taste", others hostile. Here are some that I find especially helpful: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/friendly-and-hostile-analogies-for

Like most people, Tom Wolfe didn't like modern architecture. He wondered why we abandoned our patrimony of cathedrals and palaces for a million indistinguishable concrete boxes. Unlike most people, he was a journalist skilled at deep dives into difficult subjects. The result is From Bauhaus To Our House, a hostile history of modern architecture which addresses the question of: what happened? If everyone hates this stuff, how did it win? How Did Modern Architecture Start? European art in the 1800s might have seemed a bit conservative. It was typically sponsored by kings, dukes, and rich businessmen, via national artistic guilds that demanded strict compliance with classical styles and heroic themes. The Continent's new progressive intellectual class started to get antsy, culminating in the Vienna Secession of 1897. Some of Vienna's avante-garde artists officially split from the local guild to pursue their unique transgressive vision. The point wasn't that the Vienna Secession itself was particularly modern… https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-from-bauhaus-to-our-house 

Do longer prison sentences reduce crime? It seems obvious that they should. Even if they don't deter anyone, they at least keep criminals locked up where they can't hurt law-abiding citizens. If, as the studies suggest, 1% of people commit 63% of the crime, locking up that 1% should dramatically decrease crime rates regardless of whether it scares anyone else. And blue state soft-on-crime policies have been followed by increasing theft and disorder. On the other hand, people in the field keep saying there's no relationship. For example, criminal justice nonprofit Vera Institute says that Research Shows That Long Prison Sentences Don't Actually Improve Safety. And this seems to be a common position; William Chambliss, one of the nation's top criminologists, said in 1999 that "virtually everyone who studies or works in the criminal justice system agrees that putting people in prison is costly and ineffective." This essay is an attempt to figure out what's going on, who's right, whether prison works, and whether other things work better/worse than prison. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/prison-and-crime-much-more-than-you

Suppose something important will happen at a certain unknown point. As someone approaches that point, you might be tempted to warn that the thing will happen. If you're being appropriately cautious, you'll warn about it before it happens. Then your warning will be wrong. As things continue to progress, you may continue your warnings, and you'll be wrong each time. Then people will laugh at you and dismiss your predictions, since you were always wrong before. Then the thing will happen and they'll be unprepared. Toy example: suppose you're a doctor. Your patient wants to try a new experimental drug, 100 mg. You say "Don't do it, we don't know if it's safe". They do it anyway and it's fine. You say "I guess 100 mg was safe, but don't go above that." They try 250 mg and it's fine. You say "I guess 250 mg was safe, but don't go above that." They try 500 mg and it's fine. You say "I guess 500 mg was safe, but don't go above that." They say "Haha, as if I would listen to you! First you said it might not be safe at all, but you were wrong. Then you said it might not be safe at 250 mg, but you were wrong. Then you said it might not be safe at 500 mg, but you were wrong. At this point I know you're a fraud! Stop lecturing me!" Then they try 1000 mg and they die. The lesson is: "maybe this thing that will happen eventually will happen now" doesn't count as a failed prediction. I've noticed this in a few places recently. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/against-the-generalized-anti-caution

Last month, I challenged 11,000 people to classify fifty pictures as either human art or AI-generated images. I originally planned five human and five AI pictures in each of four styles: Renaissance, 19th Century, Abstract/Modern, and Digital, for a total of forty. After receiving many exceptionally good submissions from local AI artists, I fudged a little and made it fifty. The final set included paintings by Domenichino, Gauguin, Basquiat, and others, plus a host of digital artists and AI hobbyists. One of these two pretty hillsides is by one of history's greatest artists. The other is soulless AI slop. Can you tell which is which? If you want to try the test yourself before seeing the answers, go here. The form doesn't grade you, so before you press "submit" you should check your answers against this key. Last chance to take the test before seeing the results, which are: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/how-did-you-do-on-the-ai-art-turing

In 1980, game theorist Robert Axelrod ran a famous Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma Tournament. He asked other game theorists to send in their best strategies in the form of "bots", short pieces of code that took an opponent's actions as input and returned one of the classic Prisoner's Dilemma outputs of COOPERATE or DEFECT. For example, you might have a bot that COOPERATES a random 80% of the time, but DEFECTS against another bot that plays DEFECT more than 20% of the time, except on the last round, where it always DEFECTS, or if its opponent plays DEFECT in response to COOPERATE. In the "tournament", each bot "encountered" other bots at random for a hundred rounds of Prisoners' Dilemma; after all the bots had finished their matches, the strategy with the highest total utility won. To everyone's surprise, the winner was a super-simple strategy called TIT-FOR-TAT: https://readscottalexander.com/posts/acx-the-early-christian-strategy 

The rise of Christianity is a great puzzle. In 40 AD, there were maybe a thousand Christians. Their Messiah had just been executed, and they were on the wrong side of an intercontinental empire that had crushed all previous foes. By 400, there were forty million, and they were set to dominate the next millennium of Western history. Imagine taking a time machine to the year 2300 AD, and everyone is Scientologist. The United States is >99% Scientologist. So is Latin America and most of Europe. The Middle East follows some heretical pseudo-Scientology that thinks L Ron Hubbard was a great prophet, but maybe not the greatest prophet. This can only begin to capture how surprised the early Imperial Romans would be to learn of the triumph of Christianity. At least Scientology has a lot of money and a cut-throat recruitment arm! At least they fight back when you persecute them! At least they seem to be in the game! https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-the-rise-of-christianity

I. Polymarket (and prediction markets in general) had an amazing Election Night. They called states impressively early and accurately, kept the site stable through what must have been incredible strain, and have successfully gotten prediction markets in front of the world (including the Trump campaign). From here it's a flywheel; victory building on victory. Enough people heard of them this election that they'll never lack for customers. And maybe Trump's CFTC will be kinder than Biden's and relax some of the constraints they're operating under. They've realized the long-time rationalist dream of a widely-used prediction market with high volume, deserve more praise than I can give them here, and I couldn't be happier with their progress. But I also think their Trump shares were mispriced by about ten cents, and that Trump's victory in the election doesn't do much to vindicate their numbers. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/congrats-to-polymarket-but-i-still

[I haven't independently verified each link. On average, commenters will end up spotting evidence that around two or three of the links in each links post are wrong or misleading. I correct these as I see them, and will highlight important corrections later, but I can't guarantee I will have caught them all by the time you read this.] https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/links-for-november-2024

A red sun dawns over San Francisco. Juxtaposed against clouds and sea, it forms a patriotic tableau: blood red, deathly white, and the blue of the void. As its first rays touch the city, the frantic traffic slows to a crawl; even the birds cease to sing. It is Election Day in the United States. Future generations will number American elections among history's greatest and most terrible spectacles. As we remember the Games in the Colosseum, or the bloody knives of Tenochtitlan, so they will remember us. That which other ages would relegate to a tasteful coronation or mercifully quick coup, we extend into an eighteen-month festival of madness. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/mantic-monday-judgment-day 

I. Time to own the libs! ACX joins such based heterodox thinkers as Curtis Yarvin, Nick Fuentes, Richard Spencer, and David Duke in telling you what the woke Washington Post and failing LA Times don't want you to know: Donald Trump is the wrong choice for US President. If you're in a swing state, we recommend you vote Harris; if a safe state, Harris or your third-party candidate of choice. [EDIT/UPDATE: If you're in a safe state and want to trade your protest vote with a swing state voter, or vice versa, go to https://www.swapyourvote.org/] I mostly stand by the reasoning in my 2016 post, Slate Star Codex Endorses Clinton, Johnson, Or Stein. But you can read a better and more recent argument against Trump's economic policy here, and against his foreign policy here. You can read an argument that Trump is a dangerous authoritarian here. You can, but you won't, because every American, most foreigners, and a substantial fraction of extra-solar aliens have already heard all of this a thousand times. I'm under no illusion of having anything new to say, or having much chance of changing minds. I write this out of a vague sense of deontological duty rather than a consequentialist hope that anything will happen. And I'm writing the rest of this post because I feel bad posting a couple of paragraph endorsement and not following up. No guarantees this is useful to anybody. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/acx-endorses-harris-oliver-or-stein 

[This is a guest post by Clara Collier. Clara is the editor of Asterisk Magazine.] Proposition 36 is a California ballot measure that increases mandatory sentences for certain drug and theft crimes.  It's also a referendum on over a decade of sentencing reform efforts stemming from California's historical prison overcrowding crisis. Like many states, California passed increasingly tough sentencing laws through the 90s and early 2000s. This led to the state's prisons operating massively over capacity: at its peak, a system built for 85,000 inhabitants housed 165,000. This was, among other things, a massive humanitarian crisis. The system was too overstretched to provide adequate healthcare to prisoners. Violence and suicide shot up.  In 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that California prisons were so overcrowded that their conditions violated the 8th Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment. That year, the state assembly passed a package of reforms called "realignment," which shifted supervision of low-level offenders from the state to the counties. Then, in 2014, Californians voted for Proposition 47, which reduced some felony crimes to misdemeanors – theft of goods valued at under $950 and simple drug possession – and made people in prison for those crimes eligible for resentencing. Together, realignment and Prop 47 brought down California's prison and jail population by 55,000.  The campaign for Prop 36 is based on the premise that Prop 47 failed, leading to increased drug use and retail theft (but don't trust me – it says so in the text of the measure). 36 would repeal some parts of 47, add some additional sentencing increases, and leave some elements in place (the LA Times has a good breakdown of the changes here). It's easy to round this off to a simple tradeoff: are we willing to put tens of thousands of people in jail if it would decrease the crime rate? But this would be the wrong way to think about the measure: there is no tradeoff. Prop 36 will certainly imprison many people, but it won't help fight crime. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-case-against-proposition-36