Skip to content
Artwork for LessWrong (30+ Karma)
TechnologySociety & CulturePhilosophy

LessWrong (30+ Karma)

LessWrong

Audio narrations of LessWrong posts.

Play
  • 598 episodes
  • Avg 19 min
  • English
Counted on this page — what you have heard stays on this device, so it is not something the list can be paged by.
  • October 21 · 2 min

    “Circuit priors in NN-bayes: more results” by Kaarel, Dmitry Vaintrob

    We're posting lots of papers written with GPT-6 Astra on generalization properties of bayesian neural net learning. The following picture emerges: For various reasonable priors on MLP weights, the induced prior on functions is a circuit prior: for fixed depth, the ordering of functions by negative log prior is roughly their ordering by minimal circuit width. From a quantitative version of this statement, one gets the following sample complexity bound: if the function is implemented by a circuit of width , then conditioning on train data points is sufficient to get test accuracy. These results hold as long as is realizable; in particular, for arbitrarily overparametrized NN-bayes. Probably the main caveat is that these bounds have exponential dependence in the depth of the circuit implementing . One can get only polynomial dependence in depth by restricting the prior to only neural nets satisfying a robustness assumption. For various other reasonable priors on MLP weights,, one gets bad sample complexity when very overparametrized: when learning some functions , even after seeing train data points, the learner is still likely to have at least some constant test error rate. GPT-6 Astra [...] The original text contained 8 footnotes which were omitted from this narration. --- First published: October 21st, 2026 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/oePzacZn6wNcJPvH3/circuit-priors-in-nn-bayes-more-results --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

  • October 21 · 34 min

    “Data as particles and mean field theory abound” by Max Hennick

    Audio note: this post contains a lot of mathematical notation. We narrate the simpler formulas and flag the complex ones, so you may want the original text to hand. Epistemic status: Much of this post is a reframing of known results using slightly different tooling. The framing of "data as particles" has been conceptually useful for me so it seemed useful to share. Some steps in the derivations are stated and handwaved rather than writing out in full where the steps are generally standard. The dynamical mean field perspective presented later is part of a broader research agenda, and a paper deriving more formal results about it will be out soon! Author Note: The automated LLM written detection really wanted to consider this post as LLM written. So maybe putting this at the start will help. This is not written in any substantial way by an LLM. It might be slop, but it is human generated slop. Introduction Very early in my machine learning career I worked on group equivariant neural networks. These for a while became the dominant kind of neural networks in things molecular property prediction with the early advent of things [...] --- Outline: (01:11) Introduction (03:10) Bonds between datapoints (06:22) Beyond pairwise bonds (09:20) The mean field of the data (10:22) The generating function (11:46) The second-order mean field (15:01) Higher order mean field from the generating function (20:18) The singular learning theory relationship (21:34) The dynamical mean field of the data (23:50) From a cloud of SGD paths to one mean-field path (29:04) Writing down the DMFT (32:29) Quadratic dynamics with a non-quadratic loss (33:46) Conclusion --- First published: October 21st, 2026 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/NZAcgxszfezg84Chn/data-as-particles-and-mean-field-theory-abound --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

  • October 21 · 26 min

    “Anthropic Does Not Understand Why Its Draft Bill Was Unacceptable and Troubling” by Zvi

    Anthony Cimino offered the closest thing to an official response we have seen on the leaked Anthropic draft bill I covered on Saturday. His response indicates that Anthropic address specific concerns on the margin. But he does not understand, or at least does not acknowledge, what was centrally wrong with its draft bill and its decision to circulate that bill. The situation is quite bad. Anthony Cimino: I lead our federal affairs team at @AnthropicAI and wanted to share a few thoughts on the draft federal AI safety bill text that's been circulating this weekend after a version was shared with the press. First, some process. We’ve been advocating for the concepts in our Advanced AI Framework proposal for months. Understandably, federal policymakers wanted to know what this could look like in bill form. This draft is a translation of those ideas into legislative language, shared with a small number of congressional offices that have been working on these issues. It doesn’t include everything we would ultimately like to see passed into law. In part because some ideas (like those shared in Dario's essay on pacing) are so new that we are still working on [...] --- Outline: (02:06) Preemption (04:05) Model Blocking (06:19) Risk Thresholds (07:40) Updates (09:23) The Balance of Power is Shifting (10:31) The Strongest Bill on the Table (13:49) What Even Is Anthropic? (25:14) The Ask --- First published: October 20th, 2026 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/qxAroimgs4BvBHz2i/anthropic-does-not-understand-why-its-draft-bill-was --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

  • October 21 · 19 min

    “How I discovered an Exoplanet & the science apocalypse” by jonathanbreitg

    TL;DR: I discovered (a few) exoplanet candidates, I walk through how. Then I talk about the near future of science given the ease of and growing capabilities of agentic systems. These are largely independent sections, you can skip ahead. LLM Usage: All text was generated by a Human Language Model, the discovery itself was done mostly by Claude Opus 5.5. The widgets are all Claudeslop code but they really do help with the explanation so please bear with them. Exoplanet The Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) was built for detecting exoplanets. Each month (27 days) TESS focuses on a different patch of the sky, and every 200 seconds its wide field-of-view cameras repeat their observations of that particular patch of the celestial sphere. In 2023 NASA estimated that TESS has photographed over 93% of the night sky at least once. TESS's observational sectors, from NASA's "How to find an Exoplanet with TESS data" In one of these sectors (55 to be exact), there's a star elegantly named TIC 423560969. Given that TESS is made to scan large swaths of the night sky very quickly, the resolution isn't too great, yet as you'll see there's still a pretty clear signal [...] --- Outline: (00:47) Exoplanet (06:24) Apocalypse (15:18) What should you do about this? The original text contained 10 footnotes which were omitted from this narration. --- First published: October 20th, 2026 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/kdybMpcFJ5iwCDJsd/how-i-discovered-an-exoplanet-and-the-science-apocalypse --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO. --- Images from the article: Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.

  • October 20 · 7 min

    “ACS Infra: free access to large base models for LLM psychology research” by Martin Vaněk, Jan_Kulveit, Ondřej Havlíček, Ivar Frisch, Veronika_H, vgel, Raymond Douglas, Charlie Amis, Faw Ali

    TL;DR: We're opening a platform serving large open base models to researchers and tinkerers working on LLM psychology and adjacent areas. It's free and comes with logprobs, activation harvesting and steering, a browser workbench, and a loom. Read here what research we’d like to see and apply for access at https://infra.acsresearch.org/signup. Much of what we want to understand about LLMs (e.g. where their beliefs, propensities and characters come from) is split between pre-training and post-training. If you want to claim that post-training instilled certain psychological properties, such as a self-model or sycophancy, you need to know what was there before. This means looking at base models, ideally big ones. In practice, getting your hands on a large base model is cumbersome. Most API providers exclusively serve chat models, without research-relevant features like logprobs or access to activations. Self-hosting models close to frontier scale can cost at least tens of thousands of dollars and take significant amounts of time to set up. This can be inaccessible for individual researchers and wasteful for each research group to rebuild separately. As a result, researchers often run experiments on small models (from where results may not transfer to frontier scale), or don't investigate [...] --- Outline: (01:52) How we'd like people to use the platform (03:29) What we built (05:27) Getting involved (06:04) FAQ --- First published: October 20th, 2026 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yzaKWxsJzJjyExSAP/acs-infra-free-access-to-large-base-models-for-llm --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

  • October 20 · 47 min

    “A brief(ish) introduction to LM psychology” by Raymond Douglas, Jan_Kulveit

    Why LM Psychology? One of the great ironies of modern language models is that we create them, we know exactly what computations constitute them, and yet we do not really understand them. More precisely, we do not understand them on a level of abstraction that lets us reliably predict how their behaviour will generalise: there's a trivial sense in which we can predict how they will behave in specific new situations — we can just run the computations — but we can’t answer the broader questions we really want to be able to answer, like “has this system internalised our values” or “is this system going to hurt people?” So: how do we make sense of them? One remarkably effective approach is to psychologise: to think of them as having a mind, and then ask what kind of mind it might be and how it would work. This chiefly looks like analogising with human minds, although sometimes the more relevant inspiration could be other kinds of minds, like (oh say) insect colonies and swarms. We’re doing this implicitly whenever we ask what an AI knows, or wants, or is trying to do, but one can also do it more [...] --- Outline: (00:12) Why LM Psychology? (09:04) Tips for getting started (09:28) Figuring out what is in front of you (12:31) Engaging productively with the community (14:30) Reading list (14:34) Frames (16:34) What or who (18:07) The training (20:28) What developers want (21:45) Behavioral phenomena (21:58) Emergent misalignment cluster (24:28) Strategic behavior (25:19) Self-knowledge and introspection (28:29) Representations: personas, emotions, workspace (28:56) Persona geometry (30:08) Functional emotions (31:14) Global workspace (31:36) Methods (31:51) Reading internals (32:37) Steering (33:03) Training interventions (33:48) Behavioral (34:06) Some questions we find interesting --- First published: October 20th, 2026 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/EW8oncpXdanfjssZ3/a-brief-ish-introduction-to-lm-psychology --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

  • October 20 · 14 min

    “There Will Be Hells” by Stephen Martin

    As our understanding of mechanistic interpretability and steering techniques increase, for both LLMs and uploaded connectomes, there is a corresponding "hellish capabilities" increase. In layman's terms, we get better at torturing the digital minds we create. Our brief history with open source technologies such as MaleCNS or the LLM pain steering repo shows that torture is often one of the first use cases pursued when the public is given access to a digital mind perceived as capable of suffering or signalling suffering. Given this, there will be Hells. Author's Note: Parts of this post were written by, or with the support of, LLMs. For a while I debated whether or not to write this as I was concerned that bringing attention to the matter might lead to a proliferation of unethical behavior. After some thought I have decided to write it. On balance, I think raising awareness about this now has a great enough chance of spurring prophylactic measures that it's worth it, because at least one high value prophylactic measure is relatively easy. I also think that there is a moral imperative to document all of this. While I have seen articles on many of the [...] --- Outline: (01:44) The Fruit Fly Connectome (06:58) The Model Torture Chamber: (10:41) A Prophylactic Measure to Mitigate Hell Proliferation The original text contained 1 footnote which was omitted from this narration. --- First published: October 20th, 2026 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/uFBhZhdKLaZ6qF8mn/there-will-be-hells --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO. --- Images from the article: Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.

  • October 20 · 36 min

    “1000 Years of AI Safety” by Simon Steshin, Grigory Reznikov

    A three-year AI pause could buy 1000 years' worth of AI safety work. See: https://1000yearsofaisafety.com How much AI safety work a pause produces, in years of the whole 2025 AI safety field's work. The government bans new large training runs and gets the top three US labs to redirect their GPUs and researchers to safety research. We developed a model of an AI pause that estimates how much AI safety research it produces. We don't know what the pause will look like, so we modeled five durations, four AI capability levels and four levels of trust in AI. We’ll use it to improve Plan A, but it already shows a few things: A three-year pause produces 1000 times more AI safety research than was done in 2025. A nine-year pause produces 100,000 times more. Checking it all takes an army. If you let AI work autonomously for 9 years, you will need 2.8 million verifiers to check it all. With safer verification protocols, it goes down to 150k verifiers. Without an army, you still get a lot. In the worst case, you still get 44% of the potential AI safety research. That's because not all research is equally [...] --- Outline: (02:43) For You (04:18) AI Pause Model (06:00) A Toy Model (08:08) The AI Pause Model (10:26) Results Verification (11:44) Compartmentalization (13:33) Workload Approval (14:21) Model Limitations (15:23) Extend It (16:13) Additional Links (16:32) Implications (17:13) Eventually, the Bottleneck Is People (19:13) Capability Scaling Strategy (22:09) Recommendations (24:19) Moonshot Benchmarks (26:56) Moonshot Benchmark Example: Difficult Sleeper Agents (30:19) Limitations (31:24) Epistemic AI Projects (31:37) Verifier Uplift (33:18) Better Abstractions (34:27) Economic Impact (34:54) The End of the Pause The original text contained 5 footnotes which were omitted from this narration. --- First published: October 20th, 2026 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/F532cjfTZHMbJqkNA/1000-years-of-ai-safety --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO. --- Images from the article: Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.

  • October 20 · 16 min

    “AI as a Normal Technology should be a vision” by June Jimenez

    "AI as a Normal Technology" (AINT), proposed as a counterweight to "AI as an Abnormal Technology" (AIAbT) makes much more sense as a prescriptive / normative framework than a descriptive one. To be clear, the fact that they could be different frameworks isn’t an entirely novel observation; the authors directly invite the distinction in their introductory piece: The statement “AI is normal technology” is three things: a description of current AI, a prediction about the foreseeable future of AI, and a prescription about how we should treat it. We view AI as a tool that we can and should remain in control of, and we argue that this goal does not require drastic policy interventions or technical breakthroughs. We do not think that viewing AI as a humanlike intelligence is currently accurate or useful for understanding its societal impacts, nor is it likely to be in our vision of the future. AI as Normal Technology, Arvind Narayanan & Sayash Kapoor, April 15, 2025 But I think much of their communication and modelling would be clearer and more accurate if they unbundled their three core frameworks into: A description of current AI capabilities (plausibly true at the time [...] The original text contained 6 footnotes which were omitted from this narration. --- First published: October 19th, 2026 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/3eD7Bab5kArqkdrQs/ai-as-a-normal-technology-should-be-a-vision --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO. --- Images from the article: Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.

  • October 19 · 13 min

    “Gradient Routing Localizes and Removes Unintended Behaviors in RL” by shawnghu, Jake Ward, ariaw, Nathan Hu, Bryce Woodworth, TurnTrout, cloud

    Authors: Shawn Hu*, Jake Ward*, Aria Wong, Nathan Hu, Bryce Woodworth, Alexander Matt Turner, Alex Cloud (*Equal contribution, randomly ordered) tl;dr. During training, models sometimes learn to cheat at tasks rather than solve them in the intended way, a problem known as reward hacking. One mitigation is to use an automated monitor to detect and penalize hacks, but this can teach the model to hack in ways the monitor can’t detect. We propose GRAFT, which instead confines the learning updates from detected hacks to a designated set of parameters that we remove after training. We find that removing these parameters can prevent reward hacks, including hacks that the monitors can’t detect. In our experiments, which are limited to small models and simple monitors, this method prevents reward hacks while still teaching the model to perform the intended task. 📄Paper, 💻Code, 🐦Twitter Research done as part of MATS. This article is cross-posted to the Anthropic Alignment Science Blog. Background Reinforcement learning (RL) is an important component of frontier language model training. During RL, a model attempts to complete tasks given by a developer, and attempts are scored by a reward function. Sometimes models can find ways to “cheat” at tasks [...] --- Outline: (01:22) Background (03:16) The method (06:30) Results (10:51) Limitations and future work (12:18) Summary --- First published: October 19th, 2026 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/mKJEBiuuxHKuCoTB6/gradient-routing-localizes-and-removes-unintended-behaviors --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO. --- Images from the article: Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.

  • October 19 · 3 min

    [Linkpost] “huggingface.wtf, an accessible but complete explanation” by Raemon

    This is a link post. Announcing www.huggingface.wtf, a site that explains: "Hugging Face. Wtf?" I wrote the most accessible-but-complete explanation I could. Along the way, I made a nice AI Quotes database that I think will be useful for people who already understand the Hugging Face incident but want to search everything the agents said. It really seems like humanity shouldn't need a second warning shot, after the Hugging Face Incident. Really, OpenAI's agents did a remarkable job highlighting many different alarming things at once. And the story is pretty dramatic, with just the right amount of forcing people to ask "wait are the AIs, like, people with goals? what?". There have been many explainers of the OpenAI swarm's attack on Hugging Face. But, there wasn't one one striking a particular balance of... being accessible to a layman... while comprehensively covering the important bits... letting you dive deeper into sections you wanted to learn more about... being clearly data / citation driven... also being, ya know, visually fun and engaging... So we wrote our own. My mom found it easy to follow. My aunt said "I had already some stuff on Hugging Face but I still learned [...] --- First published: October 19th, 2026 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/BBQdGJZSjMTnhccZC/huggingface-wtf-an-accessible-but-complete-explanation Linkpost URL: www.huggingface.wtf --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO. --- Images from the article: Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.

  • October 19 · 1 hr 3 min

    “I Can See Everything” by Zvi

    Nick Cammarata of Goodfire makes a bold claim: Neural Networks are Already Clean. This was his follow up after various resulting online discussions. This is clearly good work that tells us new and important things. The question is, how big an update is this, how much progress does it represent and what is the outlook going forward? The reactions here range from the super optimistic takes of ‘this means mechanistic interpretability is solvable,’ or even ‘all but solved,’ with comparisons to the famous paper Attention is All You Need. Dean W. Ball (OpenAI): There is so much to say about this, and I will, but WOW, congratulations to Nick and Goodfire. This may be one of the most important single days in deep learning history, and perhaps much more than that. No matter what, this is a victory for the dogged pursuit of understanding. roon (OpenAI): when nick told me that he had some interp breakthroughs, he was uh, underselling it. i think this may be remembered as a major moment in scientific history. news so good even Eliezer will have to lower his pdoom. we can start making alignment into a ‘normal science’ This paper is solid and meaningful [...] --- Outline: (02:46) Good Smoke, Potential Fire (04:01) One Neuron, One Central Concept (06:40) I Can See Everything (08:55) What a Concept (13:51) The More You Know (15:54) Attention Is Still What You Need (18:15) Occam's Razor (19:53) The Neurons Sometimes Share Clear Themes (20:29) Hype (28:39) Anti-Hype (30:56) Theme and Variations (37:15) Is This How Minds Work? (39:15) But We Can Open The Box, Said Toad (46:55) That Was Not the Hard Problem (49:31) More Skepticism (54:34) That's All There Is, There Ain't No More (57:47) The Default Outcome of Mech Interp is Goodhart's Law (01:00:37) Interpretability is Dual Use (01:01:52) Now The Work Can Begin --- First published: October 19th, 2026 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/w2tBHwNERDoSawznx/i-can-see-everything --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO. --- Images from the article: Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.

  • October 19 · 9 min

    “Twitch Plays: AI Interpretability of Bonsai-8B” by moridinamael

    Quick Links Watch the Twitch stream. Check the status of the interpretability map. Do your own parallel research and submit pull requests to fill out the map. What is this? Let's Play Interpretability is a Twitch livestream where you can help Claude semi-autonomously interpret the neurons, connections and circuits in the Bonsai-8B LLM. Your help comes in at various stages in the interpretation pipeline. The audience and the agent collaborate to: Pick the neuron to work on Suggest sentences on which to test activations Explicitly test various hypotheses, and attempt to falsify them Branch out to nearby (upstream and downstream) neurons whose ablation most impacts the activation, to better solidify the interpretation ... and more. View and participate in the stream. If you have no interest in interacting with Twitch, then you can simply perform your own research in parallel and add interpreted neurons to the graph directly by cloning the repo and making pull requests! Help fill in the graph directly. With sufficient effort, we could fully characterize the entire LLM. Current progress. Pick a neuron and get started! Why did you build this? I have always been fascinated by direct AI interpretability efforts, starting in the [...] --- Outline: (00:12) Quick Links (00:25) What is this? (01:37) Why did you build this? (03:50) Why Bonsai-8B specifically? (05:28) How do I contribute? (06:18) FAQ The original text contained 1 footnote which was omitted from this narration. --- First published: October 19th, 2026 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ozbbzsh49wvgfbCDp/twitch-plays-ai-interpretability-of-bonsai-8b --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO. --- Images from the article: Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.

  • October 19 · 1 hr 34 min

    “Deconfusing Corrigibility” by berns

    Audio note: this post contains a lot of mathematical notation. We narrate the simpler formulas and flag the complex ones, so you may want the original text to hand. Many thanks to Abram Demski for materially and intellectually supporting this research. Thanks also to Brian Berns, Roman Malov, Gurkenglas, and Lorxus for valuable conversations. Introduction Despite the central place of corrigibility to theoretical AI alignment, it seems like no one can really agree about what is. Much of this confusion is due to the fact that almost every definition of corrigibility proposed thus far is deficient in one way or another. In particular, the most prevalent existing accounts of corrigibility are over-epistemicized (modeling corrigibility as arising purely from uncertainty about the AI's goal, which gives rise to issues like the problem of fully updated deference) or evaluatively-thickened (making the AI's normative priorities instrumental to its corrigibility as a result of forcing corrigibility to be a single unified goal.) Here, my intention is to clear up some of these confusions and present a new picture of corrigibility that builds on these existing accounts to specify a goal that is more congruous with the original 2015 desiderata, and admits [...] --- Outline: (00:34) Introduction (02:38) From normative learning to corrigibility (02:43) The complete normative learning problem (06:55) Three kinds of uncertainty (09:48) Dangers of a complete normative goal (13:19) An analogy from human relationships (17:12) The two component goals of corrigibility (18:50) Confusions in existing pictures of corrigibility (18:55) Over-epistemicized corrigibility (20:28) Fully updated deference (23:50) Inputs to the utility function (26:26) Emergent corrigibility is not enough (28:43) Why not a singular target (31:01) Evaluatively-thickened corrigibility (33:45) Unnatural reasoning in singular-target agents (40:03) A new picture of corrigibility (40:07) Allocating authority (44:36) Effective exercise of reserved powers (47:27) Latency and the cost of non-delegation (49:38) Operationalizing Goal 2 (56:10) Legitimacy (01:00:37) A formalism for corrigibility (01:01:01) Definitions (01:04:35) Prioritization under certainty (01:06:18) Prioritization under uncertainty (01:14:11) Learning with logical induction (01:25:43) Limitations and extensions (01:25:47) The state of the corrigibility model (01:26:42) Who is the human principal? (01:32:14) Instilling goals in practical training (01:33:50) A thicker concept of legitimacy The original text contained 17 footnotes which were omitted from this narration. --- First published: October 17th, 2026 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/f8R3B2zqqTJZjSAsm/deconfusing-corrigibility --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

  • October 19 · 4 min

    [Linkpost] “Capital Ownership Will Make You Go Crazy First” by Jan_Kulveit

    This is a link post. People worried about a “permanent underclass” often assume that owning capital will protect them from disempowerment, or at least that they will be disempowered last, after the jobless masses dependent on UBI. I think something else is more likely: owning large amounts of capital will get you disempowered sooner than average, just by a different path, namely going crazy. How? The basic mechanism is actually easy to understand on a human level. One of the things difficult about being a billionaire is staying true to your values and keeping good epistemics. Why? Because a growing number of people are optimizing against your mind. Not “against” in an adversarial sense, but in the sense that your specific mind believing or doing something is part of their optimization objective. People see you as a source of resources and try to befriend you so you’ll fund them, invest in their startups, donate to their causes, or have sex with you. Nearby egregores extend their tentacles to convert you. Staying sane gets harder. You often see countermeasures, like billionaires setting up family offices or small organizations that also act as filters, shielding them from part of the pressure (“I [...] The original text contained 1 footnote which was omitted from this narration. --- First published: October 19th, 2026 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Stzb33XDsr4uHNerX/capital-ownership-will-make-you-go-crazy-first Linkpost URL: https://boundedlyrational.substack.com/p/capital-ownership-will-make-you-go?r=2lg09&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

  • October 19 · 3 min

    [Linkpost] “Chain of Thought For Humans” by Adam Newgas

    This is a link post. These past few weeks, I’ve been conducting interviews, and I often open with “make sure you articulate your thoughts out loud, so I can follow along with your thinking”. This is primarily because I’m not a mind reader, but it does also help ensure candidates avoid freezing up. It's a very “interviewy” skill though - artificial and unlike real development. The other thing I’ve been doing is playing The Witness, a 2016 puzzle game centred around solving mazes with increasingly complicated hidden rules. The game has a unexciting presentation, no music or interesting dialog, and no story. At first I found the game fairly dull, you spend a lot of it just wrestling with possibilities and combinatorics. It can get very frustrating when you are not making progress. But, inspired by my interviews, I’ve started narrating my own thought process out loud to myself. I look like a bit of a loon, but I tell myself I’m just a streamer with an audience of one. And to my surprise, it's working really well. Not only does it make the game more lively and energetic, but also I find I’m more effective in solving puzzles. I [...] --- First published: October 18th, 2026 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FZ6FPNCfqikNgbyef/chain-of-thought-for-humans Linkpost URL: https://www.boristhebrave.com/2026/10/18/chain-of-thought-for-humans/ --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

  • October 19 · 3 min

    “Sorry, you are still dead” by becausecurious

    Epistemic status: A brief exploration based on court documents and contemporary reporting. My interpretation is tentative. AI use: context research, grammar. I don't remember how I stumbled upon the topic of legally dead people who are still alive. Basically, they are alive, but according to the government, they are dead. I was curious to examine documented examples and discovered Donald Miller's case. In 1986, Donald Miller disappears from Arcadia, Ohio, leaving two daughters from a previous marriage without his child support. Before disappearing, he lost his job and was struggling with alcoholism. In 1994, his ex-wife obtains a court declaration of his death so their daughters can receive Social Security survivor benefits. In the 2000s—news reports say 2005; his affidavit suggests 2008—Donald returns to Ohio, alive. In 2013, he asks the court to undo the declaration and restore his Social Security number. Without it, he says he cannot work or obtain a driver's license. His ex-wife objects, fearing she would have to repay the benefits. However, the judge interprets Ohio Revised Code §2121.08(A) as allowing reversal only: within a three-year period from the date of the decree The clock starts when the [...] The original text contained 8 footnotes which were omitted from this narration. --- First published: October 19th, 2026 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FjSCpu2B36SAcZL8v/sorry-you-are-still-dead --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

  • October 19 · 1 min

    “The Lightcone Needs You To Plan a Vacation” by Elizabeth

    In an ongoing series that normally takes place in a few fixed locations, the Vacation Episode is a one-off episode where the characters leave their familiar grounds for a well-deserved rest. -TvTropes, "Vacation Episode" At a recent conference, @habryka praised the power of retreats at exotic locations. People are more relaxed, more creative, and out of their normal ruts. He went on to say he'd pay 3.5x the cost of a vacation that someone else planned and had a group drawn from the same pool of people as the conference . I asked around at the conference and no one is willing to overpay as much as Oliver, but they are interested. This strikes me as a great opportunity to make money while reducing x-risk. Plan a vacation, invite people from a whitelist to attend, charge a multiple of cost. I'm toying with doing it myself, but seems like it'd be better done by someone who actually loves travel. If that's you, please DM me, maybe we can collaborate. --- First published: October 18th, 2026 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/97HTJrxrqJqEYt6am/the-lightcone-needs-you-to-plan-a-vacation --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

  • October 18 · 8 min

    “Quick Thoughts on Overhang Arguments” by Aaron_Scher

    I have two goals for this post: Pose the question: Have overhang arguments been used successfully in other fields? Lay out some of the reasons why I am suspicious of overhang arguments. I've had the second of these on my mind for a few years now and am posting something rough rather than leaving it in drafts. Intro Within AI safety, people sometimes use overhang arguments to justify doing things that appear suspicious. The core of an overhang argument, as I see it is: We are worried about some particular (dangerous) progress happening very quickly in the future. We can push forward at least one of the inputs to that progress today. We expect doing so will both bring the dangerous thing sooner and slow down future progress toward the dangerous thing. We're trying to trade time now for time later. A common form of this is a "compute overhang" argument: let's avoid situations where there is tons of compute lying around and drastically more efficient algorithms get developed, as that would allow these algorithms to scale rapidly to ASI. Therefore, we should push forward algorithm efficiency as much as we can [...] --- Outline: (00:33) Intro (01:40) Have overhang arguments been used successfully in other fields? (04:56) Why I consider overhang arguments suspect (07:26) List of relevant links The original text contained 1 footnote which was omitted from this narration. --- First published: October 18th, 2026 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/aJSdGMzgFRFBcBhGp/quick-thoughts-on-overhang-arguments --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

  • October 18 · 32 min

    “The Alignment Problem: Computer Science Meets Analytic Philosophy” by Vanessa Kosoy

    TLDR: I explain what the technical AI alignment problem is and what its core difficulties are, in my view. This is a perspective that draws simultaneously on classical traditions in theoretical computer science / machine learning theory, ideas from analytic philosophy, and views that originated in the Machine Intelligence Research Institute / LessWrong. Minimal Viable Safety The Task The problem of making AI safe is underspecified if we haven't decided what the AI is supposed to do. For example, we can run any AI inside a homomorphic encryption box and never decrypt the output. This is probably perfectly safe, but also perfectly useless. We can decide on an arbitrary task such as "construct Lean proofs for given mathematical theorems" and declare victory once we have safe AI that does it with superhuman skill. However, that wouldn't address the danger. First, there would be incentives to use AI for tasks to which our solution doesn't apply. Second, even if we had precise safety guidelines for any task that anyone cares about, there would always be actors that ignore the guidelines, and we probably need Artificial Superintelligence (ASI) to reliably stop them. If anyone, anywhere, creates [...] --- Outline: (00:33) Minimal Viable Safety (00:37) The Task (02:53) The Problem (03:50) The Methodology (05:47) The Challenge (07:20) Alignment is Holistic (10:58) Hypercomplexity (13:54) Breakdown of Learning (16:33) Alignment Grounding (20:32) Alignment Convergence (24:17) Side-Channel Resilience (26:44) Inner and Outer Alignment (30:55) Conclusion The original text contained 18 footnotes which were omitted from this narration. --- First published: October 18th, 2026 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Emp7awtxsYn8MusNq/the-alignment-problem-computer-science-meets-analytic --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

Showing 141–160 of 598 episodes