you can just disagree with fetterman's decision. members of congress mostly don't write their own posts
05.03.2026 22:02
👍 3
🔁 1
💬 0
📌 0
you can just disagree with fetterman's decision. members of congress mostly don't write their own posts
for sure, in the short run the volume concerns are real but I’m not sure what that works out to in equilibrium (if your CV suddenly shows 20 papers/year, everyone knows what you’re doing; journals will likely find ways to adapt to a ton of slop submissions)
at least for my use cases I can do *better* research with just me and a couple undergrad RAs than I otherwise would be able to pull off without a lab. I think that’s good!
of course, of course
one thing we know LLMs can’t do (yet) is experience a lovely early spring evening. it is absolutely lovely outside right now folks.
I think progressive/moderate is shorthand for a combination of:
- their theory of electability (mobilize the base vs. persuade non-Democrats)
- that crockett is more *partisan* than talarico, even if they're similarly located on the ideological dimension
Claude is really good! And plenty of people on this website think so! But yeah if you kick a hornets nest you’re probably gonna get stung.
Sure, my point is that your post was tailor-made to generate a reaction that confirmed your belief on this point.
politically interested Democrats in particular have spent the last ten years learning how to call bullshit on "he's just kind of dumb, he didn't really mean it that way"
I'm definitely not sure that's the audience for a *post* that comes out swinging at researchers writ large on this specific website.
I agree with you on a lot of the substance, but I'm with Anton that this was unnecessarily provocative.
not really relevant to the thread but this finding does prompt the question of whether what's being measured here is really Christian nationalism™ vs. more general religious attitudes
Most cryptocurrency research asks: Who owns it?
Might be the wrong question about a multi-trillion dollar market, whether you're opposed or a supporter.
The more important question for both groups might be: who would consider owning it?
New work 👇
Paper link: authors.elsevier.com/a/1mhPF3SU%7...
Graham Platner is actually an experiment designed to elicit everyone’s rank-ordering of how committed they are to their post-2024 election takes.
"The U.S. reputation as a fair dealer and reliable partner will be in shambles. Yet again, the Trump administration has apparently used peace talks as a pretext for striking at an adversary, making it pointless for future adversaries to engage in negotiations."
This hadn’t gone exactly how they’d like. In December, Bloomberg reported recently, “a senior US defense official posed a hypothetical scenario” to Amodei: What if a nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missile were hurtling towards the US with only 90 seconds to spare, and Anthropic’s AI were the only way to trigger a missile response to save the country, but the company’s safeguards wouldn’t allow it, the senior official mused in a December phone call. “Call me,” was how Pentagon officials interpreted Amodei’s answer, according to another senior defense official briefed on the discussion, who described being astounded by the billionaire’s response. LOL. Our beautiful generals have many medals and some even have battlefield experience, but I can say with some confidence that they have never engaged with a Rationalist online and are deeply unprepared for what it means to pick a fight with one.
![[Dario Amodei Bane voice] “Oh, you think stupid elaborate hypotheticals are your ally. But you merely adopted elaborate and weirdly specific hypothetical scenarios; I was born in them, molded by them. I didn’t see a normal argument until I was already a man, by then it was nothing to me but BLINDING!”](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:f6yzeddlu7zjqbthmn37yvom/bafkreib7pecf4dbdvggwa5kwnnlvfhp3pzs7nzzdcnltn7ocx2dqeprjha@jpeg)
[Dario Amodei Bane voice] “Oh, you think stupid elaborate hypotheticals are your ally. But you merely adopted elaborate and weirdly specific hypothetical scenarios; I was born in them, molded by them. I didn’t see a normal argument until I was already a man, by then it was nothing to me but BLINDING!”
one of the funniest things to keep coming out of the anthropic reporting is that the pentagon was trying to convince amodei by proposing elaborate hypothetical scenarios. buddy do you think an EFFECTIVE ALTRUIST has never considered a bizarrely specific and elaborate hypothetical scenario??
📢 We're Hiring!
The Wesleyan Media Project (WMP), in collaboration with Wesleyan University’s Hazel Quantitative Analysis Center (QAC) at Wesleyan University, is seeking a postdoctoral researcher in computational social science to join us.
I have a friend who works on the publishing side of the academic publishing game and when we talk about academic publishing we are often speaking completely different languages. I suspect we'd both be surprised at the value-add publishers see in this.
The latest from @ymriofficial.bsky.social : What are young men seeing about Epstein on Reddit?
youngmenresearchinitiative.substack.com/p/what-are-y...
Delighted to show off some of YMRI's new social listening tools, with a case example of what young mens' subreddits are saying about Epstein
re: today's entry, strength (valence) and moderation (ideology) are separable. plausible you want to do both, and also plausible that the causal arrow goes party/candidate eval --> trait eval rather than the other way around.
increasingly identifying as an ambivalent centrist in the moderation debate (I think both sides make some good points and sometimes get over their skis)
I think I’m currently on team Door #3 (image of tree options for TX Dem Sen polling)
Door #3 until Tuesday.
🧵on my new paper "Synthetic personas distort the structure of human belief systems" w Roberto Cerina I'm v excited about...
🚨 Do synthetic samples look like human samples?
We compare 28 LLMs to the 2024 General Social Survey (GSS) to find out + develop host of diagnostics...
would be great to pop an open-ended followup on a question like this. "You said you voted for Harris, but when we asked you in 2024 you said you voted for Trump. What led you to change your answer?"
For Playboy, I wrote about Clavicular, masculinity, and the digital image www.playboy.com/read/enterta...
my read on his view is that these tools are breaking the model where we use the volume or even rigor of papers as we typically understand them to evaluate merit, because it's never been easier to perform rigor over a boring question
in other posts he's clarified that he's making is-statements not ought-statements here, less triumphalism and more "how do we deal with this?"
set.seed(42), the "delve" of vibe coding
a paper quantifying vibe coding adoption by documenting the proportion of replication files using seed 42 for reproducible pseudo-random number generation over time
not in a normative "should they?" sense but in a software development "they should, how easy is it to do?" sense.
