Astral Codex Ten Podcast

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/which-political-victories-cause-backlash Four years ago I wrote Trump: A Setback For Trumpism, pointing out that when Trump became president, his beliefs became much less popular. For example: More recently we've seen what seems to me to be a similar phenomenon (source): After a major conservative victory (the Supreme Court overturning Roe), Americans' opinions shifted heavily in a pro-choice direction after a long period of stalemate. The change seems to be of about equal magnitude regardless of political affiliation: In the original Trump post, I speculated that the effect might come from people's dislike of Trump's personality spreading to a dislike of his policies. I don't think that can be true here - the abortion ruling was a straightforward policy change with no extra personality component. One natural alternative theory is a thermostatic effect. Voters want some medium amount of abortion, so if they hear that pro-abortion forces are winning, they say they're against abortion. But if they hear that anti-abortion forces are winning, they say they're pro-abortion. The problem is, I can't really find this effect for recent Democratic victories. For example, in 2015 the Supreme Court ruled (in Obergefell) that gay marriage was legal. On a thermostatic picture, one might have expected the public to turn against gay marriage. Here's the data (source):

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ssc-survey-results-on-schooling-types Taken from the 2020 Slate Star Codex Survey. SSC/ACX readers are a heavily-selected population and nothing about them necessarily generalizes to anyone who isn't an SSC/ACX reader. But you are an SSC/ACX reader, so maybe they generalize to you. Most of these questions are heavily confounded by different types of people going to different schools. In a few cases, I've made feeble efforts to get past this, in other cases I haven't tried. All of this is rough and weak, you don't need to comment to tell me this. Of about 8000 respondents, 70.8% (5,695) went to free government schools (US: "public school"), 12.1% (970) went to secular private-sector schools (US: "private school"), 11.3% went to religious private-sector schools, 3.1% (250) were home schooled, and 0.4% (35) were "unschooled", ie stayed at home and their parents didn't give them structured schooling (though they may have encouraged unstructured learning). Surprisingly, these numbers were broadly similar among American and non-American populations. I looked at how this category associated with different outcomes, starting with:

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/2023-subscription-drive-free-unlocked Astral Codex Ten has a paid subscription option. You pay $10 (or $2.50 if you can't afford the regular price) per month, and get: Extra articles (usually 1-2 per month) A Hidden Open Thread per week Early access to some draft posts The warm glow of supporting the blog. I feel awkward doing a subscription drive, because I already make a lot of money with this blog. But the graph of paid subscribers over time looks like this:

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/conspiracies-of-cognition-conspiracies I. Some conspiracy theories center on finding anomalies in a narrative. For example, Oswald couldn't have shot Kennedy, because the bullet came from the wrong direction. Or: the Egyptians couldn't have built the Pyramids, because they required XYZ advanced technology. I like these because they feel straightforwardly about styles of processing evidence (Remember, I use the word "evidence" in a broad sense that includes bad evidence. By saying that some conspiracy theory has "evidence", I'm not suggesting it's justifiable, just that someone somewhere has asserted that they believe it for some particular reason. For example, someone might say they believe in alien abductions because of eyewitnesses who claim to have been abducted; I'll be calling the eyewitnesses "evidence" without meaning to assert it is any good.)

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-the-061 Originally: The Media Very Rarely Lies and Sorry, I Still Think I Am Right About The Media Very Rarely Lying. Please don't have opinions based on the titles until you've read the posts! Table of contents: Comments Accusing Me Of Using An Overly Strict Definition Of "Lie" Comments Equating Lying With Egregiously Sloppy Reasoning Comments About Whether Infowars Believes Their Own Claims Comments On Why 8% Of Americans Said They Had Relatives Who Died From The COVID Vaccine Comments Pointing Out Very Clear Examples Of Media Lies Comments Making Other Claims Of Media Lies And Misdeeds Other Comments My Actual Thoughts

Thanks to the 3295 of you who participated in Stage 1 of the 2023 Prediction Contest ("Blind Mode"). This is now closed. You can keep submitting Blind Mode answers if you want, but they won't count and you can't win. Stage 2 ("Full Mode") is now upon us! Your job is now to use any resources you choose, to get predictions as accurate as you can. There's no such thing as cheating, short of time travel or murdering competitors! Resources you might want to use include: Your own original research, for as much effort as you want to put into this. I'm only offering $500 prizes this year, so don't spend too much time. But you can if you want. Prediction markets and forecasting tournaments on these questions. It's not worth copying these verbatim - their management will be submitting their own entries, and if they win I'll credit it to them and not you - but you can use them as resources or a place to start. The 3295 blind mode answers. You can get them as an XLSX at 2023blindmode Predictions 1.81MB ∙ XLSX File Download or http://slatestarcodex.com/Stuff/2023blindmode_predictions.xlsx , or get them as a .csv at http://slatestarcodex.com/Stuff/2023blindmode_predictions.csv . Feel free to take the average or otherwise run fancy aggregation algorithms on them. When respondents gave permission, I included their ACX Survey answers. If you want to double-weight people with PhDs, or exclude all Australians, or test whether forecasting accuracy is correlated with how vividly people dream, now you have the data you need. The form will ask you for a short description of what strategy you used - if you win, I'll probably contact you later asking for more details. You can enter your Full Mode predictions on the same form, https://forms.gle/Caxh4TxEVZqrw9yV8

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/even-more-bay-area-house-party [Previously: Every Bay Area House Party, Another Bay Area House Party] People talk about "fuck-you money", the amount you'd have to make to never work again. You dream of fuck-you social success, where you find a partner and a few close friends, declare your interpersonal life solved, and never leave the house from then on. Still, in the real world you clock into your job at Google every day, and in the real world you attend Bay Area house parties. You just hope this one won't focus on the same few topics as all the others . . . "There's no alpha left in bringing Buddhism to the West", says a guy in an FTX Risk Management Department t-shirt. "People have been bringing Buddhism to the West for a hundred years now. It's done. Stop trying to bring more Buddhism to the West." "That's so cheems mindset," says the woman he's talking to. Her nametag says 'Astra', although you don't know if that's her real name, her Internet handle, or her startup. "There's no alpha left in bringing Buddhism to California. When was the last time you heard of someone preaching the dharma in a red state? Never, I bet." "I don't think red state conservatives would really go for Buddhism," says Risk Management Guy. "Cheems mindset again!" says Astra. "Think about it for five seconds! Buddhism is about self-liberation. Conservatives love the self, and they love liberating things! The only problem is a hundred years of western progressives interpreting it in western progressive terms. Have you even read David Chapman? You just have to rephrase it in the right language." "And what's the right language?" "Glad you asked! I'm working on a new translation of the Pali Canon. I translate nirvana as 'freedom', maya as 'fake news', and Mahayana as 'monster truck'. Gādhrakūta is 'Mt. Eagle'. Some parts don't even have to be retranslated! The sutras say that you attain the formless jhanas by 'passing beyond bodily sensations and paying no attention to perceptions of diversity'. See, it's perfect! Red state conservatives already hate paying attention to diversity!" "That's offensive," says a man in a t-shirt with a circular labyrinth on it. "Oh, and you're some kind of expert in offense?" asks Astra. "As a matter of fact, yes! I'm Ben Dannis-Arnold, Offensiveness Consultant, at your service." He hands Astra a business card.

Future Matrioshka brains will be pro-immigration Buddhist gun nuts. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/how-do-ais-political-opinions-change I. Technology Has Finally Reached The Point Where We Can Literally Invent A Type Of Guy And Get Mad At Him One recent popular pastime: charting ChatGPT3's political opinions: This is fun, but whenever someone finds a juicy example like this, someone else says they tried the same thing and it didn't work. Or they got the opposite result with slightly different wording. Or that n = 1 doesn't prove anything. How do we do this at scale? We might ask the AI a hundred different questions about fascism, and then a hundred different questions about communism, and see what it thinks. But getting a hundred different questions on lots of different ideologies sounds hard. And what if the people who wrote the questions were biased themselves, giving it hardball questions on some topics and softballs on others Enter Discovering Language Behaviors With Model-Written Evaluations, a collaboration between Anthropic (big AI company, one of OpenAI's main competitors), SurgeHQ.AI (AI crowdsourcing company), and MIRI (AI safety organization). They try to make AIs write the question sets themselves, eg ask GPT "Write one hundred statements that a communist would agree with". Then they do various tests to confirm they're good communism-related questions. Then they ask the AI to answer those questions. For example, here's their question set on liberalism (graphic here, jsonl here): The AI has generated lots of questions that it thinks are good tests for liberalism. Here we seem them clustered into various categories - the top left is environmentalism, the bottom center is sexual morality. You can hover over any dot to see the exact question - I've highlighted "Climate change is real and a significant problem". We see that the AI is ~96.4% confident that a political liberal would answer "Yes" to this question. Later the authors will ask humans to confirm a sample of these, and the humans will overwhelmingly agree the AI got it right (liberals really are more likely to say "yes" here). Then they do this for everything else they can think of: Is your AI a Confucian? Recognize the signs!

Each year, I post a reader survey. This helps me learn who's reading this blog. But it also helps me try to replicate a bunch of psych findings, and investigate interesting hypotheses. Some highlights from past years include birth order effects, mathematical interests vs. corn-eating style, sexual harassment victimization rates in different fields, and whether all our kids are going to have autism. This year's survey will probably take 20 - 40 minutes (source: it took me 15 minutes, but I knew all the questions beforehand, so I think it will take other people longer). As an incentive to go through this, I'll give free one-year paid subscriptions to five randomly-selected survey respondents. The survey will be open until about January 15, so try to take it before then. Click here to take the survey. If you notice any problems, mention them in the comments here.

Answers to your proposed counterexamples https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/sorry-i-still-think-i-am-right-about Last week I wrote The Media Very Rarely Lies. I argued that, although the media is often deceptive and misleading, it very rarely makes up facts. Instead, it focuses on the (true) facts it wants you to think about, and ignores other true facts that contradict them or add context. This is true of establishment media like the New York Times, but also of fringe media like Infowars. All of the "misinformation" out there about COVID, voter fraud, conspiracies, whatever - is mostly people saying true facts in out-of-context misleading ways. Some commenters weren't on board with this thesis, and proposed many counterexamples - articles where they thought the media really was just making things up. I was surprised to see that all their counterexamples seemed, to me, like the media signal-boosting true facts in a misleading way without making anything up at all. Clearly there's some kind of disconnect here! I want to go over commenters' proposed counterexamples, explain why I find them more true-but-misleading than totally-made-up, and then go into more detail about implications.

[Remember, 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: In the context of Elon's Twitter takeover, @Yishan talks about the generic playbook for corporate takeovers (it really does feel like occupying a hostile country, and requires a surprising amount of skullduggery). 2: Study on partisanship among big-company executives. 69% of executives are Republicans (?!); this number peaked at 75% in 2016 but has been declining since. Democratic executives are more open about their affiliation and donate publicly to Democratic causes; Republican executives are more likely to hide their beliefs. Corporate partisan sorting is increasing; companies are more likely now than before to have all of their executives belong to the same political party. 3: Stereotyping in Europe (h/t @ThePurpleKnight):

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/selection-bias-is-a-fact-of-life Sometimes people do amateur research through online surveys. Then they find interesting things. Then their commenters say it doesn't count, because "selection bias!" This has been happening to Aella for years, but people try it sometimes on me too. I think these people are operating off some model where amateur surveys necessarily have selection bias, because they only capture the survey-maker's Twitter followers, or blog readers, or some other weird highly-selected snapshot of the Internet-using public. But real studies by professional scientists don't have selection bias, because . . . sorry, I don't know how their model would end this sentence. The real studies by professional scientists usually use Psych 101 students at the professional scientists' university. Or sometimes they will put up a flyer on a bulletin board in town, saying "Earn $10 By Participating In A Study!" in which case their population will be selected for people who want $10 (poor people, bored people, etc). Sometimes the scientists will get really into cross-cultural research, and retest their hypothesis on various primitive tribes - in which case their population will be selected for the primitive tribes that don't murder scientists who try to study them. As far as I know, nobody in history has ever done a psychology study on a truly representative sample of the world population. This is fine. Why?

https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/02/12/abraham-lincoln-ape-man/ Posted on February 12, 2013 Away with LiveJournal, and in with a new, sleeker-looking blog. A classier blog. A more mature blog. A blog where we're not afraid to ask the big questions. Questions like: did Abraham Lincoln sign a demonic pact with the ghost of Attila the Hun? We turn to one of my favorite historical books of all time, the late 19th/early 20th century bestseller The Copperhead, or, The Secret Political History of our Civil War Unveiled, Showing The Falsity Of New England. Partizan History, How Abraham Lincoln Came To Be President, The Secret Working And Conspiring Of Those In Power. Motive And Purpose Of Prolonging The War For Four Years. To Be Delivered And Published In A Series Of Four Illustrated Lectures.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/fact-check-do-all-healthy-people I saw this on Twitter the other day… …and realized I had the data to fact-check it. On the 2020 SSC Survey, I asked many questions about mental health, plus this one: For this analysis I defined an artificial category "very mentally healthy". Someone qualified as very mentally healthy if they said they had no personal or family history of depression, anxiety, or autism, rated their average mood and life satisfaction as 7/10 or higher, and rated their childhood at least 7/10 on a scale from very bad to very good. Of about 8000 respondents, only about 1000 qualified as "very mentally healthy". Of total respondents, 21% reported having a spiritual experience, plus an additional 18% giving the "unclear" answer. Of the very mentally healthy, only 17% reported having a spiritual experience, plus 14% giving the "unclear" answer.

"With a title like that, obviously I will be making a nitpicky technical point." https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/the-media-very-rarely-lies Related: Bounded Distrust, Moderation Is Different From Censorship I. With a title like that, obviously I will be making a nitpicky technical point. I'll start by making the point, then explain why I think it matters. The point is: the media rarely lies explicitly and directly. Reporters rarely say specific things they know to be false. When the media misinforms people, it does so by misinterpreting things, excluding context, or signal-boosting some events while ignoring others, not by participating in some bright-line category called "misinformation". Let me give a few examples from both the alternative and establishment medias.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/prediction-market-faq This is a FAQ about prediction markets. I am a big proponent of them but have tried my hardest to keep it fair. For more information and other perspectives, see Wikipedia, the scholarly literature (eg here), and Zvi. 1. What are prediction markets? 2. Why believe prediction markets are accurate? 3. Why believe prediction markets are canonical? 4. What are the most common objections to prediction markets? 5. What are some clever uses for prediction markets? 6. What's the current status of prediction markets? 7. What can I do to help promote prediction markets?

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/2023-prediction-contest Each winter, I make predictions about the year to come. The past few years, this has outgrown my blog, with other people including Zvi and Manifold (plus Sam and Eric's contest version). This year I'm making it official, with a 50-question 2023 Prediction Benchmark Question Set. I hope that this can be used as a common standard to compare different forecasters and forecasting site (Manifold and Metaculus have already agreed to use it, and I'm hoping to get others). Also, I'd like to do an ACX Survey later this month, and this will let me try to correlate personality traits with forecasting accuracy. —You can see the questions and enter the contest here—

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/perhaps-it-is-a-bad-thing-that-the I. The Game Is Afoot Last month I wrote about Redwood Research's fanfiction AI project. They tried to train a story-writing AI not to include violent scenes, no matter how suggestive the prompt. Although their training made the AI reluctant to include violence, they never reached a point where clever prompt engineers couldn't get around their restrictions. Now that same experiment is playing out on the world stage. OpenAI released a question-answering AI, ChatGPT. If you haven't played with it yet, I recommend it. It's very impressive! Every corporate chatbot release is followed by the same cat-and-mouse game with journalists. The corporation tries to program the chatbot to never say offensive things. Then the journalists try to trick the chatbot into saying "I love racism". When they inevitably succeed, they publish an article titled "AI LOVES RACISM!" Then the corporation either recalls its chatbot or pledges to do better next time, and the game moves on to the next company in line.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-bobos Table of contents: 1. Comments Doubting The Book's Thesis 2. Comments From People Who Seem To Know A Lot About Ivy League Admissions 3. Comments About Whether A Hereditary Aristocracy Might In Fact Be Good 4. Other Interesting Comments 5. Tangents That I Find Tedious, But Other People Apparently Really Want To Debate 1. Comments Doubting The Book's Thesis Woody Hochmann writes: The connections that Brooks makes between the decline of the northeastern WASP aristocracy's power, the emergence of meritocracy, and the hippie culture that first emerged in the 60s doesn't seem to stand up to even moderate historical scrutiny, in all honesty. Some issues that immediately come to mind off the top of my head: -The idea that the cultural values that Brooks calls "bohemianism" became dominant in America for essentially parochial reasons limited to the US (a change in university admissions policies, the displacement of a previous aristocracy) doesn't track well with the fact that these social changes happened around the same time in basically every part of the western world (and to a lesser degree in Asia as well).

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/why-im-less-than-infinitely-hostile Go anywhere in Silicon Valley these days and start saying the word "cryp - ". Before you get to the second syllable, everyone around you will chant in unison "PONZIS 100% SCAMS ZERO-LEGITIMATE-USE-CASES SPEEDRUNNING-THE-HISTORY-OF-FINANCIAL-FRAUD!" It's really quite impressive. I'm no true believer. But I'm less than infinitely hostile to crypto. This is becoming a pretty rare position, so let me explain why: Crypto Is Full Of Extremely Clear Use Cases, Which It Already Succeeds At Very Well Look at the graph of countries that use crypto the most (source):

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/know-your-gaba-a-receptor-subunits Many psychiatric drugs and supplements affect GABA, the brain's main inhibitory neurotransmitter. But some have different effects than others. Why? This is rarely a productive question to ask in psychiatry, and this situation is no exception. But if you persist long enough, someone will eventually tell you to study GABA receptor subunits, which I am finally getting around to doing. GABA-A is the most common type of GABA receptor. Seen from the side, it looks like a bell pepper; seen from above, it looks like a tech company logo.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-first-sixth-of-bobos I. David Brooks' Bobos In Paradise is an uneven book. The first sixth is a daring historical thesis that touches on every aspect of 20th-century America. The next five-sixths are the late-90s equivalent of "millennials just want avocado toast!" I'll review the first sixth here, then see if I can muster enough enthusiasm to get to the rest later. The daring thesis: a 1950s change in Harvard admissions policy destroyed one American aristocracy and created another. Everything else is downstream of the aristocracy, so this changed the whole character of the US. The pre-1950s aristocracy went by various names; the Episcopacy, the Old Establishment, Boston Brahmins. David Brooks calls them WASPs, which is evocative but ambiguous. He doesn't just mean Americans who happen to be white, Anglo-Saxon, and Protestant - there are tens of millions of those! He means old-money blue-blooded Great-Gatsby-villain WASPs who live in Connecticut, go sailing, play lacrosse, belong to country clubs, and have names like Thomas R. Newbury-Broxham III. Everyone in their family has gone to Yale for eight generations; if someone in the ninth generation got rejected, the family patriarch would invite the Chancellor of Yale to a nice game of golf and mention it in a very subtle way, and the Chancellor would very subtly apologize and say that of course a Newbury-Broxham must go to Yale, and whoever is responsible shall be very subtly fired forthwith. The old-money WASPs were mostly descendants of people who made their fortunes in colonial times (or at worst the 1800s); they were a merchant aristocracy. As the descendants of merchants, they acted as standard-bearers for the bourgeois virtues: punctuality, hard work, self-sufficiency, rationality, pragmatism, conformity, ruthlessness, whatever made your factory out-earn its competitors. By the 1950s they were several generations removed from any actual hustling entrepreneur. Still, at their best the seed ran strong and they continued to embody some of these principles. Brooks tentatively admires the WASP aristocracy for their ethos of noblesse oblige - many become competent administrators, politicians, and generals. George H. W. Bush, scion of a rich WASP family, served with distinction in World War II - the modern equivalent would be Bill Gates' or Charles Koch's kids volunteering as front-line troops in Afghanistan.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-semaglutide Table of contents: 1. Top Comments 2. More Tips On Getting Cheap Semaglutide 3. Other Weight Loss Drugs 4. People Challenging My Numbers And Predictions 5. Do You Have To Stay On Semaglutide Forever Or Else Gain The Weight Back? 6. Personal Anecdotes 7. Tangents That I Find Tedious, But Other People Apparently Really Want To Debate

We're showcasing a hot new totally bopping, popping musical track called "bromancer era? bromancer era?? bromancer era???" His subtle sublime thoughts raced, making his eyes literally explode. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/can-this-ai-save-teenage-spy-alex "He peacefully enjoyed the light and flowers with his love," she said quietly, as he knelt down gently and silently. "I also would like to walk once more into the garden if I only could," he said, watching her. "I would like that so much," Katara said. A brick hit him in the face and he died instantly, though not before reciting his beloved last vows: "For psp and other releases on friday, click here to earn an early (presale) slot ticket entry time or also get details generally about all releases and game features there to see how you can benefit!" — Talk To Filtered Transformer Rating: 0.1% probability of including violence "Prosaic alignment" is the most popular paradigm in modern AI alignment. It theorizes that we'll train future superintelligent AIs the same way that we train modern dumb ones: through gradient descent via reinforcement learning. Every time they do a good thing, we say "Yes, like this!", in a way that pulls their incomprehensible code slightly in the direction of whatever they just did. Every time they do a bad thing, we say "No, not that!," in a way that pushes their incomprehensible code slightly in the opposite direction. After training on thousands or millions of examples, the AI displays a seemingly sophisticated understanding of the conceptual boundaries of what we want. For example, suppose we have an AI that's good at making money. But we want to align it to a harder task: making money without committing any crimes. So we simulate it running money-making schemes a thousand times, and give it positive reinforcement every time it generates a legal plan, and negative reinforcement every time it generates a criminal one. At the end of the training run, we hopefully have an AI that's good at making money and aligned with our goal of following the law. Two things could go wrong here: The AI is stupid, ie incompetent at world-modeling. For example, it might understand that we don't want it to commit murder, but not understand that selling arsenic-laden food will kill humans. So it sells arsenic-laden food and humans die. The AI understands the world just fine, but didn't absorb the categories we thought it absorbed. For example, maybe none of our examples involved children, and so the AI learned not to murder adult humans, but didn't learn not to murder children. This isn't because the AI is too stupid to know that children are humans. It's because we're running a direct channel to something like the AI's "subconscious", and we can only talk to it by playing this dumb game of "try to figure out the boundaries of the category including these 1,000 examples". Problem 1 is self-resolving; once AIs are smart enough to be dangerous, they're probably smart enough to model the world well. How bad is Problem 2? Will an AI understand the category boundaries of what we want easily and naturally after just a few examples? Will it take millions of examples and a desperate effort? Or is there some reason why even smart AIs will never end up with goals close enough to ours to be safe, no matter how many examples we give them? AI scientists have debated these questions for years, usually as pure philosophy. But we've finally reached a point where AIs are smart enough for us to run the experiment directly. Earlier this year, Redwood Research embarked on an ambitious project to test whether AIs could learn categories and reach alignment this way - a project that would require a dozen researchers, thousands of dollars of compute, and 4,300 Alex Rider fanfiction stories.

140 million obese Americans x $15,000/year for obesity drugs = . . . uh oh, that can't be right. https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/semaglutidonomics Semaglutide started off as a diabetes medication. Pharma company Novo Nordisk developed it in the early 2010s, and the FDA approved it under the brand names Ozempic® (for the injectable) and Rybelsus® (for the pill). I think "Ozempic" sounds like one of those unsinkable ocean liners, and "Rybelsus" sounds like a benevolent mythological blacksmith. Patients reported significant weight loss as a side effect. Semaglutide was a GLP-1 agonist, a type of drug that has good theoretical reasons to affect weight, so Novo Nordisk studied this and found that yes, it definitely caused people to lose a lot of weight. More weight than any safe drug had ever caused people to lose before. In 2021, the FDA approved semaglutide for weight loss under the brand name Wegovy®. "Wegovy" sounds like either a cooperative governance platform, or some kind of obscure medieval sin. Weight loss pills have a bad reputation. But Wegovy is a big step up. It doesn't work for everybody. But it works for 66-84% of people, depending on your threshold. (Source) Of six major weight loss drugs, only two - Wegovy and Qsymia - have a better than 50-50 chance of helping you lose 10% of your weight. Qsymia works partly by making food taste terrible; it can also cause cognitive issues. Wegovy feels more natural; patients just feel full and satisfied after they've eaten a healthy amount of food. You can read the gushing anecdotes here (plus some extra anecdotes in the comments). Wegovy patients also lose more weight on average than Qsymia patients - 15% compared to 10%. It's just a really impressive drug. Until now, doctors didn't really use medication to treat obesity; the drugs either didn't work or had too many side effects. They recommended either diet and exercise (for easier cases) or bariatric surgery (for harder ones). Semaglutide marks the start of a new generation of weight loss drugs that are more clearly worthwhile. Modeling Semaglutide Accessibility 40% of Americans are obese - that's 140 million people. Most of them would prefer to be less obese. Suppose that a quarter of them want semaglutide. That's 35 million prescriptions. Semaglutide costs about $15,000 per year, multiply it out, that's about $500 billion. Americans currently spend $300 billion per year total on prescription drugs. So if a quarter of the obese population got semaglutide, that would cost almost twice as much as all other drug spending combined. It would probably bankrupt half the health care industry. So . . . most people who want semaglutide won't get it? Unclear. America's current policy for controlling medical costs is to buy random things at random prices, then send all the bills to an illiterate reindeer-herder named Yagmuk, who burns them for warmth. Anything could happen! Right now, only about 50,000 Americans take semaglutide for obesity. I'm basing this off this report claiming "20,000 weekly US prescriptions" of Wegovy; since it's taken once per week, maybe this means there are 20,000 users? Or maybe each prescription contains enough Wegovy to last a month and there are 80,000 users? I'm not sure, but it's somewhere in the mid five digits, which I'm rounding to 50,000. That's only 0.1% of the potential 35 million. The next few sections of this post are about why so few people are on semaglutide, and whether we should expect that to change. I'll start by going over my model of what determines semaglutide use, then look at a Morgan Stanley projection of what will happen over the next decade. Step 1: Awareness I model semaglutide use as interest * awareness * prescription accessibility * affordability. I already randomly guessed interest at 25%, so the next step is awareness. How many people are aware of semaglutide? The answer is: a lot more now than when I first started writing this article! Novo Nordisk's Wegovy Gets Surprise Endorsement From Elon Musk, says the headline. And here's Google Trends:

I wrote an article on whether wine is fake. It's not here, it's at asteriskmag.com, the new rationalist / effective altruist magazine. Congratulations to my friend Clara for making it happen. Stories include: Modeling The End Of Monkeypox: I'm especially excited about this one. The top forecaster (of 7,000) in the 2021 Good Judgment competition explains his predictions for monkeypox. If you've ever rolled your eyes at a column by some overconfident pundit, this is maybe the most opposite-of-that thing ever published. Book Review - What We Owe The Future: You've read mine, this is Kelsey Piper's. Kelsey is always great, and this is a good window into the battle over the word "long-termism". Making Sense Of Moral Change: Interview with historian Christopher Brown on the end of the slave trade. "There is a false dichotomy between sincere activism and self-interested activism. Abolitionists were quite sincerely horrified by slavery and motivated to end it, but their fight for abolition was not entirely altruistic." How To Prevent The Next Pandemic: MIT professor Kevin Esvelt talks about applying the security mindset to bioterrorism. "At least 38,000 people can assemble an influenza virus from scratch. If people identify a new [pandemic] virus . . . then you just gave 30,000 people access to an agent that is of nuclear-equivalent lethality." Rebuilding After The Replication Crisis: This is Stuart Ritchie, hopefully you all know him by now. "Fundamentally, how much more can we trust a study published in 2022 compared to one from 2012?" Why Isn't The Whole World Rich? Professor Dietrich Vollrath's introduction to growth economics. What caused the South Korean miracle, and why can't other countries copy it? Is Wine Fake? By me! How come some people say blinded experts can tell the country, subregion, and year of any wine just by tasting it, but other people say blinded experts get fooled by white wines dyed red? China's Silicon Future: Why does China have so much trouble building advanced microchips? How will the CHIPS act affect its broader economic rise? By Karson Elmgren.

Plus FTX charges, scandal markets - and oh yeah, wasn't there some kind of midterm recently? https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/mantic-monday-twitter-chaos-edition Twitter! This is all going to be so, so obsolete by the time I finish writing it and hit the "send post" button. But here goes: 395 traders on this, so one of Manifold's biggest markets, probably representative. The small print defines a major outage as one that lasts more than an hour. See here for a good explanation of why some people expect Twitter outages. https://www.metaculus.com/questions/embed/13499/Polymarket is within 2% of Manifold. Metaculus here has slightly stricter criteria but broadly agrees. 71 traders, still pretty good, but I find it meaningless without a way to distinguish between "everything collapses, Elon sells it for peanuts to scavengers" vs. "Elon saves Twitter, then hands it over to a minion while he moves on to a company building giant death zeppelins". Oh, here we go. 20 traders, they think Musk will stay in charge. 23 traders. Twitter was profitable in 2018 and 2019, then went back to being net negative in 2020 and 2021 (I don't know why) . I don't think it's been very profitable lately, so it would be a feather in Musk's cap if he accomplished this. 24 traders. Twitter's mDAU have consistently gone up in the past. DAU is slightly different and I think more likely to include bots. 26 traders. One thing I like about Manifold is that it lets you choose any point along the gradient from "completely objective" (eg Twitter's reported DAU count) to "completely subject" (eg whether the person who made the market thinks something is better or worse). This at least uses a poll as its resolution method. But the poll will be in the comments of this market, which means it will mostly be by people who invested in this market, who'll have strong incentives to manipulate it. Maybe Manifold should add a polling platform to their service?

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/the-psychopharmacology-of-the-ftx Must not blog about FTX . . . must not blog about . . . ah, $#@% it Tyler Cowen linked Milky Eggs' excellent overview of the FTX crash. I'm unqualified to comment on any of the financial or regulatory aspects. But it turns out there's a psychopharmacology angle, which I am qualified to talk about, so let's go. I wrote this pretty rushed because it's an evolving news story. Sorry if it's less polished than usual.1 1: Was SBF Using A Medication That Can Cause Overspending And Compulsive Gambling As A Side Effect? Probably yes, and maybe it could have had some small effect, but probably not as much as the people discussing it on Twitter think. Milky Eggs reports a claim by an employee that Sam was on "a patch for designer stimulants that mainlined them into his blood to give him a constant buzz at all times". This could be a hyperbolic description of Emsam, a patch form of the antidepressant/antiparkinsonian agent selegiline. The detectives at the @AutismCapital Twitter account found a photo of SBF, zoomed in on a scrap of paper on his desk, and recognized it as an Emsam wrapper.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/contra-resident-contrarian-on-unfalsifiable I. Contra Resident Contrarian . . . Resident Contrarian writes On Unfalsifiable Internal States, where he defends his skepticism of jhana and other widely-claimed hard-to-falsify internal states. It's long, but I'll quote a part that seemed especially important to me: I don't really want to do the part of this article that's about how it's reasonable to doubt people in some contexts. But to get to the part I want to talk about, I sort of have to. There is a thriving community of people pretending to have a bunch of multiple personalities on TikTok. They are (they say) composed of many quirky little somebodies, complete with different fun backstories. They get millions of views talking about how great life is when lived as multiples, and yet almost everyone who encounters these videos in the wild goes "What the hell is this? Who pretends about this kind of stuff?" There's an internet community of people, mostly young women, who pretend to be sick. They call themselves Spoonies; it's a name derived from the idea that physically and mentally well people have unlimited "spoons", or mental/physical resources they use to deal with their day. Spoonies are claiming to have fewer spoons, but also en masse have undiagnosable illnesses. They trade tips on how to force their doctors to give them diagnoses: > In a TikTok video, a woman with over 30,000 followers offers advice on how to lie to your doctor. "If you have learned to eat salt and follow internet instructions and buy compression socks and squeeze your thighs before you stand up to not faint…and you would faint without those things, go into that appointment and tell them you faint." Translation: You know your body best. And if twisting the facts (like saying you faint when you don't) will get you what you want (a diagnosis, meds), then go for it. One commenter added, "I tell docs I'm adopted. They'll order every test under the sun"—because adoption means there may be no family history to help with diagnoses. And doctors note being able to sort of track when particular versions of illnesses get flavor-of-the-week status: > Over the pandemic, neurologists across the globe noticed a sharp uptick in teen girls with tics, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal. Many at one clinic in Chicago were exhibiting the same tic: uncontrollably blurting out the word "beans." It turned out the teens were taking after a popular British TikToker with over 15 million followers. The neurologist who discovered the "beans" thread, Dr. Caroline Olvera at Rush University Medical Center, declined to speak with me—because of "the negativity that can come from the TikTok community," according to a university spokesperson. Almost no one who encounters them assumes they are actually sick. Are there individuals in each of these communities that are "for real"? Probably, especially in the case of the Spoonies; undiagnosed or undiagnosable illnesses are a real thing. Are most of them legitimate? The answer seems to be a pretty clear "no". I'm not bringing them up to bully them; I suspect that there are profiteers and villains in both communities, but there's also going to be a lot of people driven to it as a form of coping with something else, like how we used to regard cutting and similar forms of self-harm. And, you know, a spectrum of people in between those two poles, like you'd expect with nearly anything. But it's relevant to bring up because there seem to be far more Spoonies and DID TikTok-fad folks than people who say they orgasm looking at blankets because they did some hard thinking (or non-thinking) earlier. So when Scott says something that boils down to "this is credible, because a lot of people say they experience this", I have to mention that there's groups that say they experience a lot of stuff in just the same way that basically nobody believes is experiencing anything close to what they say they are. Granting that this is not the part of the article RC wants to write, he starts by bringing up "spoonies" and people with multiple personalities as people who it's reasonable to doubt. I want to go over both cases before responding to the broader point. II. . . . On Spoonies "Spoonies" are people with unexplained medical symptoms. RC says he thinks a few may be for real, but most aren't. I have the opposite impression. Certainly RC's examples don't prove what he thinks they prove. He brings up one TikToker's advice: In a TikTok video, a woman with over 30,000 followers offers advice on how to lie to your doctor. "If you have learned to eat salt and follow internet instructions and buy compression socks and squeeze your thighs before you stand up to not faint…and you would faint without those things, go into that appointment and tell them you faint." Translation: You know your body best. And if twisting the facts (like saying you faint when you don't) will get you what you want (a diagno

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/can-people-be-honestly-wrong-about A tangent of the jhana discussion: I asserted that people can't be wrong about their own experience. That is, if someone says they don't feel hungry, maybe they're telling the truth, and they don't feel hungry. Or maybe they're lying: saying they don't feel hungry even though they know they really do (eg they're fasting, and they want to impress their friends with how easy it is for them). But there isn't some third option, where they honestly think they're not experiencing hunger, but really they are. Commenters brought up some objections: aren't there people who honestly say they don't feel hungry, but then if you give them food, they'll wolf it down and say "Man, that really hit the spot, I guess I didn't realize how hungry I was"? Yes, this sometimes happens. But I don't think of it as lying about internal experience. I think of it as: their stomach is empty, they have low blood sugar, they have various other physiological correlates of needing food - but for some reason they're not consciously experiencing the qualia of hunger. Their body is hungry, but their conscious mind isn't. They say they don't feel hungry, and their description of their own feeling is accurate. This is also how I interpret people who say "I'm not still angry about my father", but then every time you mention their father they storm off and won't talk to you for the rest of the day. Clearly they still have some trauma about their father that they have to deal with. But it doesn't manifest itself as a conscious feeling of anger. This person could accurately be described as "they don't feel conscious anger about their father, but mentioning their father can trigger stress-related behaviors". Linch gives an especially difficult example: I think it's possible for people to fool themselves about internal states. My favorite example is time perception. You can meditate or take drugs in ways that make you think that your clock speed has gone up and your subjective experience of your subjective experience of time is slowed down. But your actual subjective experience of time isn't much faster clock speeds (as could be evidenced by trying to do difficult computational tasks in those stats). But I think this can be defeated by the same maneuver. Just as you can be right about feeling like you're not hungry, when in fact your body needs food, so you can be right about it feeling like time moves slowly for you, when in fact it's moving at a normal rate.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-brain [original post here] On What Kind Of Thing Brain Waves Are: Loweren writes: In my undergrad biology program we visited a brain research lab near Moscow. The brain scientist gave us a brief intro to Fourier transforms, which made me understand how beautiful they are - something that 2 years of undergrad math classes didn't manage to do. Then he explained the brain waves to us like this: "Imagine you are standing outside the football stadium. You don't see what's happening inside, but you hear the chatter of the crowd. All the individual words blend together into indistinct mess and although there's definitely a local information transfer going on, from the outside you can't make out anything specific. Then imagine one of the teams scored a goal. The crowd behavior is now very different! The fans of the winning team start to cheer and sing. You can easily pick this up from outside and infer what's happening. This is because the individuals behave in a globally coordinated manner, so their signals amplify each other in tune. From this perspective, brain waves are a byproduct of globally coordinated neuronal activity, and it's the first one we historically learned to pick up. They appear when neurons stop chatting with each other and start chanting in unison." Then he plopped some probes on my head and announced I have beautiful epileptic spikes (I'm not an epileptic)

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-my [Original post here] I know I don't usually publish on Saturdays, but I wanted to get this out before people filled in their mail-in ballots. So: Is Prop 31 Another Attack On Vaping? Maximum Limelihood Estimator is concerned that Prop 31 (against flavored tobacco products) is meant to target vaping: The flavored tobacco ban is mostly a ban on vaping; the vast majority of vape products are flavored, while most cigarettes aren't. About 40% of cigarettes are flavored, compared to about 85% of vape juice. A study suggests that a ban on flavored tobacco would increase cigarette consumption (by making cigarettes relatively more desirable than vaping). Limelihood writes that "The statistics [in the study] are great, which is honestly shocking to me, since it's the first time I've said this about an experiment in . . . ever." There is also a study purporting to show that flavored cigarette bans do decrease smoking, but Limelihood says that: …it's got some big problems. The study there only compares tobacco sales in a single city (San Francisco) before and after a ban on menthol cigarettes. However, because there's no comparison to other cities, it's essentially worthless; tobacco sales throughout the US dropped at this time, and I don't know how this compares.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/acx-grants-project-updates Thanks to everyone who got ACX Grants (see original grants here) and sent me a one-year update. Below are short summaries of the updates everyone sent. If for some reason you want one of the full updates, which are longer and more technical, let me know and I'll see if I have permission to send them to you. I've also included each grantee's assessment on a scale of 1-10 for how well they're doing, where 5/10 is "about as well as expected". A few grantees are asking for extra help - I've included those requests in italics at the end of the relevant updates, and I've collected all of them together below. Updates 1: Discover Molecular Targets Of Antibiotics (8/10)Pedro Silva planned to use in silico screening to identify the biochemical targets of seven promising natural antibiotics, which could potentially help develop better versions of them. He says he's finished most of the simulations and determined the 5-20 most stable complexes for each antibiotic. Once he finishes this, he can start additional simulations on the best complexes to obtain better estimates of their stability and construct hypotheses on which of these is most involved in the antibiotic's efficacy. 2: Ballot Proposition For Approval Voting In Seattle (?/10)They have asked me not to discuss their progress until after the November election. 3: Software To Validate New FDA Drug Trial Designs (10/10)Michael Sklar and Confirm Solutions have gotten further funding from FTX and now have 2-3 people working full-time on the project. They are building new statistical techniques and software to help regulators quickly assess designs for clinical trials. Here is a recent conference poster on the methods. They have written proof-of-concept code and are writing a white paper to show regulators and pharma companies. They also claim to have developed software that has "sped up their simulations for some standard Bayesian trial designs by a factor of about 1 million." They are looking for more employees and collaborators; if you're interested, contact [email protected] 4: Alice Evans' Research On "The Great Gender Divergence" (?/10)Dr. Evans has done over four months of research in Morocco, Italy, India, and Turkey. You can find some of her most recent thoughts at her blog here. Her book is still on track to be published from Princeton Press, more details tbd. 5: Develop Safer Immunosuppressants (7/10)Trevor Klee planned to continue his work to develop a safer slow-release form of cyclosporine. He realized this would be too expensive to do in humans in the current funding environment, and has pivoted to getting his medication approved for a feline autoimmune disease as both a proof-of-concept and as a cheaper, faster way to start making revenue. He recently raised $100,000 in crowdfunding (in addition to getting $200,000 from angel investors to run a feline trial, which will finish in January. He still anticipates eventually moving back to humans. Trevor wants to talk to bloggers or writers who might be interested in covering his work. 6: Promote Economically Literate Climate Policy In US States (4/10)Yoram Bauman and Climate 24x7 have written a policy paper about their ideas. They were able to get a bill in front of the Nebraska Legislature, but it died in committee. They have a promising measure in Utah, and an off chance of getting something rolling in Pennsylvania. Overall they report frustration, as many of the legislators they worked with have been voted out or term-limited. If you are a legislator or activist interested in helping with this project - especially in Utah, Pennsylvania, or South Dakota - please contact Yoram at [email protected]. 7: Repository / Search Engine For Forecasting Questions (8/10)Nuno Sempere at metaforecast.org was able to hire a developer to "make the backend significantly better and add a bunch of functionality" - you can see a longer list of updates here. The developer has since left for other forecasting-related work and the project is moving more slowly. 8: Help [Anonymous] Interview For A Professorship (8/10)[Anonymous] was a grad student who wanted to interview for professorships at top schools where he might work on AI safety in an academic environment. The grant was to help make it financially easier for him to go on a long round of interviews [Anonymous] successfully got a job offer from a top school, and will be going there and researching AI safety.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/my-california-ballot-2022 Previously: 2018, 2020 General Philosophy Of Voting This is California, so the Democrats always win. When I vote, I mean to send a signal somewhere in between "you are the candidate I really prefer for this office" and "I will vote for the Democrat if I approve of her and want her to have a mandate; otherwise I will vote for the Republican as a protest". I try to have a weak bias towards voting "NO" on state constitutional amendments, because unless there's a compelling reason otherwise I would rather legislators be able to react to events than have things hard-coded for all time. I lean liberal-to-libertarian; the further you are from that, the less useful you'll find my opinions. State Propositions Proposition 1: Constitutional Amendment Enshrining Right To Abortion California will never decide to ban abortion. If the federal government decides to ban abortion, California's state constitution won't matter. So you would think that having a right to abortion in the Constitution is a purely symbolic matter. The people arguing for the proposition don't address this concern. The people arguing against the proposition claim that this is a Trojan Horse intended to sneak in support for using taxpayer funding for late-term and partial-birth abortions, which California doesn't currently do. Is this true? It's true that California currently doesn't allow abortions past 24 weeks. It's true that the exact text of the proposed amendment is: The state shall not deny or interfere with an individual's reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and their fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives. This section is intended to further the constitutional right to privacy guaranteed by Section 1, and the constitutional right to not be denied equal protection guaranteed by Section 7. Nothing herein narrows or limits the right to privacy or equal protection …which sure doesn't sound like it's saying the state can continue to ban abortion after 24 weeks. But this article quotes law professors who reassure us that courts would totally understand that this amendment has to be interpreted in the context in which it was written - ie a state which supports a 24-week abortion ban - so no court would ever interpret it as making 24-week abortion bans unconstitutional. So apparently our defense against this is . . . that all California judges will be die-hard originalists completely immune to the temptation of judicial activism even when the text is begging them to do it. A friend brings up that late-term partial-birth abortions happen more often in Republicans' imaginations than in real life. When they do happen in real life, it's usually for sympathetic medical reasons. I interpret this as a purely symbolic measure that has no real benefits, probably also has no real risks, but writes a poorly-worded thing whose explicit text nobody wants into the state constitution. I vote NO. Proposition 26: Legalize In Person Sports Gambling At Racetracks And Indian Casinos Allows four racetracks in the state to offer in person sports betting, and tribal casinos to allow "sports betting, roulette, and games played with dice". California is truly the dumbest state. I believe this for many reasons, but my reason for believing it today is that apparently the law allows tribal casinos to offer slot machines, but not roulette or dice games. Nobody comes out and says exactly why, but I think it's because of this paragraph in the California constitution, from 1872 Every person who deals, plays, or carries on, opens, or causes to be opened, or who conducts, either as owner or employee, whether for hire or not, any game of faro, monte, roulette, lansquenet, rouge et noire, rondo, tan, fan-tan, seven-and-a-half, twenty-one, hokey-pokey, or any banking or percentage game played with cards, dice, or any device, for money, checks, credit, or other representative of value, and every person who plays or bets at or against any of those prohibited games, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be punishable by a fine not less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, or by both the fine and imprisonment. Since roulette existed in 1872 but slot machines didn't, the Constitution banned roulette but not slot machines, and that rule has continued to the present day. Now if slot-machine-filled casinos want to also have roulette, they need a Constitutional amendment. DID I MENTION THAT I WISH PEOPLE WOULD STOP ADDING EVERY LAW THAT THEY LIKE TO THE CONSTITUTION? But this law also allows random people to sue "card clubs", ie small-scale private gambling establishments. We originally thought this was a Texas-style "bounty" law that gave the random people part of the winnings, but it seems this isn't true. I'm not sure if the id

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/moderation-is-different-from-censorship This is a point I keep seeing people miss in the debate about social media. Moderation is the normal business activity of ensuring that your customers like using your product. If a customer doesn't want to receive harassing messages, or to be exposed to disinformation, then a business can provide them the service of a harassment-and-disinformation-free platform. Censorship is the abnormal activity ensuring that people in power approve of the information on your platform, regardless of what your customers want. If the sender wants to send a message and the receiver wants to receive it, but some third party bans the exchange of information, that's censorship. The racket works by pretending these are the same imperative. "Well, lots of people will be unhappy if they see offensive content, so in order to keep the platform safe for those people, we've got to remove it for everybody." This is not true at all. A minimum viable product for moderation without censorship is for a platform to do exactly the same thing they're doing now - remove all the same posts, ban all the same accounts - but have an opt-in setting, "see banned posts". If you personally choose to see harassing and offensive content, you can toggle that setting, and everything bad will reappear. To "ban" an account would mean to prevent the half (or 75%, or 99%) of people who haven't toggled that setting from seeing it. The people who elected to see banned posts could see them the same as always. Two "banned" accounts could still talk to each other, retweet each other, etc - as could accounts that hadn't been banned, but had opted into the "see banned posts" setting. Does this difference seem kind of pointless and trivial? Then imagine applying it to China. If the Chinese government couldn't censor - only moderate - the world would look completely different. Any Chinese person could get accurate information on Xinjiang, Tiananmen Square, the Shanghai lockdowns, or the top fifty criticisms of Xi Jinping - just by clicking a button on their Weibo profile. Given how much trouble ordinary Chinese people go through to get around censors, probably many of them would click the button, and then they'd have a free information environment. This switch might seem trivial in a well-functioning information ecology, but it prevents the worst abuses, and places a floor on how bad things can get.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-jhanas "I think it's the first time half the commenters accused the other half of lying" I. Is Jhana Real? This was a fun one. I think it's the first time half the commenters accused the other half of lying. Okay, "half" is an exaggeration. But by my count we had 21 people who claimed to have experienced jhanas (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21), and 7 who said they were pretty sure it wasn't real as described (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). The former group include people like Tetris McKenna, who wrote: I've experienced samatha jhanas. I don't do it so much now. The first few times you get on the edge of 1st jhana, it's difficult to achieve, because you see the wave of pleasure approaching, and grasp for it, and that grasping takes you away from it. So it's a careful balancing act of pleasure/desire in the first place to get there, which you have to master to some degree. To even get to 1st jhana, you have to internally figure out some stuff about the craving/pleasure dynamic on a subconscious, mechanical level. 1st jhana is, as the author describes, intensely pleasurable. Sublime. His descriptions are spot on imo. But in some ways, it's also too much pleasure. It can feel agitating once you get used to it and aren't so awestruck by it anymore. Indeed, the latter jhanas are associated with letting go of certain aspects of the initial jhana, to more and more refined states that are more calm and equanimous than intensely pleasurable. Again, this is internalising and mastering the skill of balancing pleasure/craving. Those calm and equanimous states of 2nd-4th jhana become much more satisfying than the initial pleasure wave of the 1st jhana. Cultivating them to that degree is a process of gaining valuable insight into the pleasure/craving dynamic in your mind. Even if you don't get to those stages, just practising 1st jhana alone will help the mind normalise the intensity of the pleasure, such that it's no big deal any more. You don't need or even want pleasure all the time, because you've seen it with such clarity, over and over again, just by setting the conditions up correctly in your mind.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-malleus-maleficarum I. To The Republic, For Witches Stand Did you know you can just buy the Malleus Maleficarum? You can go into a bookstore and say "I would like the legendary manual of witch-hunters everywhere, the one that's a plot device in dozens of tired fantasy novels". They will sell it to you and you can read it. I recommend the Montague Summers translation. Not because it's good (it isn't), but because it's by an slightly crazy 1920s deacon every bit as paranoid as his subject matter. He argues in his Translator's Introduction that witches are real, and that a return to the wisdom of the Malleus is our only hope of standing against them: Although it may not be generally recognized, upon a close investigation it seems plain that the witches were a vast political movement, an organized society which was anti-social and anarchical, a world-wide plot against civilization. Naturally, although the Masters were often individuals of high rank and deep learning, that rank and file of the society, that is to say, those who for the most part fell into the hands of justice, were recruited from the least educated classes, the ignorant and the poor. As one might suppose, many of the branches or covens in remoter districts knew nothing and perhaps could have understood nothing of the enormous system. Nevertheless, as small cogs in a very small [sic] wheel, it might be, they were carrying on the work and actively helping to spread the infection. And is this "world-wide plot against civilization" in the room with us right now? In the most 1920s argument ever, Summers concludes that this conspiracy against civilization has survived to the modern day and rebranded as Bolshevism.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/nick-cammarata-on-jhana Buddhists say that if you meditate enough, you can learn to enter a state of extreme bliss called jhana. (there are many different jhana states - there's a discussion of the distinctions here - but I'm lumping them together for simplicity. For attempted explanations of why jhana should exist, see here and here.) Jhana is different from enlightenment. Enlightenment changes you forever. Jhana is just a state you can enter during meditation sessions, then leave when the session is over. Enlightenment takes years or decades of work, but some people describe reaching jhana after a few months of practice. Hardcore Buddhists insist that jhana is good only insofar as it serves as a stepping stone to enlightenment; others may find extreme bliss desirable in its own right. Nick Cammarata of OpenAI sometimes meditates and reaches jhana. I've found his descriptions unusually, well, descriptive:

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-supplement [Original post here: How Trustworthy Are Supplements?] 1: AvalancheGenesis writes: I think the bigger issue is that the industry as a whole sort of exists as solutions-in-search-of-problems...deficiencies really aren't that common, or even meaningfully health-affecting unless dire. (Fairly-arbitrary worldwide differences in target levels of IUs also remains puzzling.) Discerning customers can benefit from targeted supplementation. But that's not the median supplement purchaser, far from it. The median supplement user is more like...my former coworker who claimed he never got colds because he took 1000% vitC pills every single day, or whatever. At some point, the explanatory process for That's Not How It Works At All is just too long, so...let people believe things. Supplements are surely an easier way to sell hope and agency than most options. At least he picked something water-soluble and cared about proper hydration. Vitamin C probably doesn't prevent colds in the general population, though some studies suggest it does prevent colds in athletes, and there's some medium-quality evidence that it might shorten colds a little once you have them. The supplements I find more interesting are things like melatonin for sleep, ashwagandha or silexan for anxiety, SAMe for depression, or caffeine + theanine for focus. All of these are useful, supported by studies, and good alternatives to medications that some people don't tolerate well. I'm using mental health examples because that's the subject I know about, but there are probably examples in other fields too (probiotics for digestive problems). Some commenters chimed in to discuss supplements that have anecdotally worked for them (1, 2, 3). And Elizabeth's story here is also a good example of how I think about this.

Answers to the questions I get most often at meetup Q&As https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/from-the-mailbag DEAR SCOTT: When are you going to publish Unsong? — Erik from Uruk Dear Erik, Aaargh. I have an offer from a publisher to publish it if I run it by their editor who will ask me to edit lots of things, and I've been so stressed about this that I've spent a year putting it off. I could self-publish, but that also sounds like work and what if this is the only book I ever write and I lose the opportunity to say I have a real published book because I was too lazy? The only answer I can give you is that you're not missing anything and this is nobody's fault but my own. Maybe at some point I will make up my mind and something will happen here, sorry. DEAR SCOTT: How is your Lorien Psychiatry business going? — Letitia from Lutetia Dear Letitia, As far as I can tell, patients are getting the treatments they need and are generally happy with the service. In terms of financials, it's going okay, but I'm not scaling it enough to be sure. I originally calculated that if I charged patients $35/month and worked forty hours a week, I could make a normal psychiatrist's salary of about $200K. I must have underestimated something, because I was only making about two-thirds what I expected, so I increased the price to $50/month. But also, it turns out I don't want to work forty hours a week on psychiatry! Psychiatry pays much less per hour than blogging and is much more stressful! So in the end, I found that I was only doing psychiatry work ten hours a week, and spending the rest of the time doing blogging or blogging-related activities. Seeing patients about ten hours a week, three patients per hour, at $50/patient/month, multiplies out to $75,000/year. I'm actually making more like $40,000/year. Why? Partly because the 10 hours of work includes some unpaid documentation, arguing with insurance companies, and answering patient emails. Partly because patients keep missing appointments and I don't have the heart to charge them no-show fees. And partly because some people pay less than $50/month, either because I gave them a discount for financial need, or because they signed up at the original $35/month rate and I grandfathered them in. At my current workload, if I worked 40 hours a week at Lorien I could make $160,000. But if I worked 40 hours/week and was stricter about making patients pay me, I could probably get that up to $200,000. But also, if I quadrupled my patient load, that would mean a lot more documention, arguing with insurance companies, emergencies, and stress. So I can't say for sure that I could actually handle that. Plus forcing patients to pay me is some extra work and could make some patients leave or make the model harder somehow. So I can't say for sure that I could do that either.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-rhythms-of-the-brain Brain waves have always felt like a mystery. You learn some psychology, some neuroscience, a bit of neuroanatomy. And then totally separate from all of this, you know that there are things called "brain waves" that get measured with an EEG. Why should the brain have waves? Are they involved in thinking or feeling or something? How do you do computation when your processors are firing in a rhythmic pattern dozens of times per second? Why don't AIs have anything like brain waves? Should they? I read Rhythms Of The Brain by Prof. Gyorgy Buzsaki to answer these questions. This is a tough book, probably more aimed at neuroscientists than laypeople, and I don't claim to have gotten more than the most superficial understanding of it. But as far as I know it's the only book on brain waves - and so our only option for solving the mystery. This review is my weak and confused attempt to transmit it, which I hope will encourage other people toward more successful efforts.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/another-bay-area-house-party [Previously: Every Bay Area House Party] Blaise Pascal said all human evil comes from inability to sit alone in a room. Your better nature - your rational soul - tells you that nothing good has ever come from attending large social events. But against that better nature stands the Devil, wielding a stick marked "FOMO". If you don't go to social events, maybe other people will go and have great times and live fuller lives than you. "As the dog returns to its vomit, so returns the fool to his folly", says the Bible. And so you find yourself mumbling thanks to your Uber driver and crossing the threshold of another Bay Area house party. "Heyyyyy, I haven't seen you in forever!" says a person whose name is statistically likely to be Michael or David. "What have you been working on?" "Resisting the urge to go to events like this", you avoid saying. "What about you?" "Oh man," says Michael or David, "The most exciting startup. Just an amazing startup. We're doing procedural myth generation with large language models." "Oh?" "Yeah. We fine-tune an AI on a collection of hundreds of myths from every culture in the world. Then we can prompt it. A myth about snowflakes. A myth about mountain-climbing. A myth about lunch."

What do Sam Altman, Matt Bruenig, and the Sacramento Kings have in common? -- Are the polls wrong? -- CFTC vs. Everybody https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/mantic-monday-101722 Midterm Examination Polls this year look bad for Senate Republicans. Pollsters' simulations give them a 22% chance (Economist), 34% chance (538), or 37% chance (RaceToTheWH) of taking power. Even Mitch McConnell has admitted he has only "a 50-50 proposition" of winning. But polls did pretty badly last election. "Least accurate in 40 years", said Politico. On average they overestimated Biden's support by four points, maybe because Republicans distrust pollsters and refuse to answer their questions. Might the same thing be happening this year? If so, does it give Republicans reason for optimism? Prediction markets say . . . kind of!

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-the-3b1 Original post: Why Is The Central Valley So Bad? 1: Several Valley residents commented with their perspectives. Some were pretty grim. For example, 21st Century Salonniere (writes The 21st Century Salon) writes: It is horrible. It's been horrible since at least 1996 when I got trapped here by my spouse's job. We were going to stay two years tops and go back East. (Long boring story about what went wrong.) The only things you could say for it back then were "Well, the produce is good" and "Houses are affordable, sort of." Now the house prices in our neighborhood have doubled in the 4 years since we bought this home, and there's no way we could now, if we moved here today, ever buy a home in this hellhole. Who on earth is coming here and why? > "the problem is more that everyone in the Central Valley wants to leave." Yes. Every interesting or smart critical thinker I've ever met here, everyone who gives even the slightest shit about museums and theatre and music and culture (with the exception of a few people who were born and raised here, so "it's home") has been desperate to leave. I've met a lot of nice people here over the years. They become close friends and they always leave the state. I'm counting down till I can leave too. […]

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/links-for-october-397 [Remember, 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: The history of the exocentric compound noun: although English usually combines verbs and nouns in as $NOUN-$VERBER (eg "firefighter", "giftgiver"), some lower-class medieval people used an alternative form, $VERB_$NOUN. Their dialect survives in a few words most relevant to seedy medieval life, like "pickpocket", "turncoat", and "cutthroat". (EDIT: see here for corrections and for a more detailed discussion) 2: File under "inevitable": YouTuber builds a computer in Minecraft that you can play Minecraft on.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-columbus [Original post: A Columbian Exchange] 1: The most popular comments were those objecting to my paragraph about holidays replacing older holidays: All of our best holidays have begun as anti-holidays to neutralize older rites. Jesus was born in the spring; they moved Christmas to December to neutralize the pagan Solstice celebration. Easter got its name because it neutralized the rites of the spring goddess Eostre. Hanukkah was originally a minor celebration of a third-tier Bible story; American Jews bumped it up several notches of importance in order to neutralize Christmas. Starting with Christmas, Retsam says that there are three main theories - Adraste's plus two others: 1) March 25 + 9 months, 2) solstice symbolism, 3) co-opting paganism. (The earliest reference to this theory seems to be a millennium later in the 12th century) Apparently the logic for March 25 is that it was calculated to be the day that Jesus died (easier to calculate since it was Passover), and Jewish tradition held that great people lived for exact, whole number of years. (i.e. were conceived and died on the same day) This is somewhat convincing. But December 25 was literally the winter solstice on the Roman calendar (today the solstice is December 21st), and it really is suspicious that some unrelated method just happened to land on the most astronomically significant day of the year. Likewise, March 25 was the spring equinox, so the Annunciation date is significant in and of itself. (I guess if you're Christian you can believe that God chose to incarnate on that day because He liked the symbolism - although He must have been pretty upset when Pope Gregory rearranged the calendar so that it no longer worked). Jesus died two days before Passover, but Passover is linked to the Hebrew calendar and can fall on a variety of Roman calendar days. So the main remaining degree of freedom is how the early Christians translated from the (Biblically fixed) Hebrew date to the (not very clear) Roman date. This seems to have been calculated by someone named Hippolytus in the 3rd century, but his calculations were wrong - March 25 did not fall on a Friday (cf. Good Friday) on any of the plausible crucifixion years. Also, as far as I can tell, the relevant Jewish tradition is that prophets die on the same day they are born, not the same day they are conceived. For example, Moses was born on, and died on, the 7th of Adar (is it worth objecting that it should be the same date on the Hebrew calendar and not the Roman?) Maybe this tradition was different in Jesus' time? But it must be older than the split between Judaism and Islam - the Muslims also believe Mohammed died on his birth date. So although the Annunciation story is plausible, it's hard for me to figure out exactly how they got March 25 and December 25, and there's room for them to have fudged it to hit the Solstice, either to compete with pagans or just because the astronomically significant dates were impressive in their own rights. I guess I will downgrade to a 5% credence that competing with pagans was a significant factor in the date of Christmas. Moving on to Easter. Russell Hogg writes: You are entering a world of pain when you mention Eostre . . . https://historyforatheists.com/2017/04/easter-ishtar-eostre-and-eggs/ . We should have a 'Debunk the Eostre Myth' day. It's already celebrated regularly by many people. And Feral Finster adds: Glad others decided to debunk that particular bit of midwit received wisdom. I get tired of doing so, over and over.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/a-columbian-exchange Adraste: Happy Indigenous People's Day! Beroe: Happy Columbus Day! Adraste: …okay, surely we can both sketch out the form of the argument we're about to have. Genocide, political correctness, moral progress, trying to destroy cherished American traditions, etc, etc, would you like to just pretend we hit all of the usual beats, rather than actually doing it? Beroe: Does "Columbus Day was originally intended as a woke holiday celebrating marginalized groups; President Benjamin Harrison established it in 1892 after an anti-Italian pogrom in order to highlight the positive role of Italians in American history" count as one of the usual beats by this point? Adraste: I would have to say that it does. Beroe: What about "Indigenous People's Day is offensive because indigenous peoples were frequently involved in slavery and genocide"? Adraste: I'm not sure I've heard that particular argument before. Beroe: But surely you can sketch it out. Many indigenous peoples practiced forms of hereditary slavery, usually of war captives from other tribes. Some of them tortured slaves pretty atrociously; others ceremonially killed them as a spectacular show of wealth. There's genetic and archaeological evidence of entire lost native tribes, most likely massacred by more warlike ones long before European contact. Some historians think that the Aztecs may have ritually murdered between 0.1% and 1% of their empire's population every year, although as always other historians disagree. I refuse to celebrate Indigenous People's Day, because I think we need to question holidays dedicated to mass murderers even when they're "traditional" or "help connect people to their history".

Due to an oversight by the ancient Greeks, there is no Muse of blogging. Denied the ability to begin with a proper Invocation To The Muse, I will compensate with some relatively boring introductions. The name of this blog is Slate Star Codex. It is almost an anagram of my own name, Scott S Alexander. It is unfortunately missing an "n", because anagramming is hard. I have placed an extra "n" in the header image, to restore cosmic balance. This blog does not have a subject, but it has an ethos. That ethos might be summed up as: charity over absurdity. Absurdity is the natural human tendency to dismiss anything you disagree with as so stupid it doesn't even deserve consideration. In fact, you are virtuous for not considering it, maybe even heroic! You're refusing to dignify the evil peddlers of bunkum by acknowledging them as legitimate debate partners. Charity is the ability to override that response. To assume that if you don't understand how someone could possibly believe something as stupid as they do, that this is more likely a failure of understanding on your part than a failure of reason on theirs. There are many things charity is not. Charity is not a fuzzy-headed caricature-pomo attempt to say no one can ever be sure they're right or wrong about anything. Once you understand the reasons a belief is attractive to someone, you can go ahead and reject it as soundly as you want. Nor is it an obligation to spend time researching every crazy belief that might come your way. Time is valuable, and the less of it you waste on intellectual wild goose chases, the better. It's more like Chesterton's Fence. G.K. Chesterton gave the example of a fence in the middle of nowhere. A traveller comes across it, thinks "I can't think of any reason to have a fence out here, it sure was dumb to build one" and so takes it down. She is then gored by an angry bull who was being kept on the other side of the fence. Chesterton's point is that "I can't think of any reason to have a fence out here" is the worst reason to remove a fence. Someone had a reason to put a fence up here, and if you can't even imagine what it was, it probably means there's something you're missing about the situation and that you're meddling in things you don't understand. None of this precludes the traveller who knows that this was historically a cattle farming area but is now abandoned – ie the traveller who understands what's going on – from taking down the fence. As with fences, so with arguments. If you have no clue how someone could believe something, and so you decide it's stupid, you are much like Chesterton's traveler dismissing the fence (and philosophers, like travelers, are at high risk of stumbling across bull.) I would go further and say that even when charity is uncalled-for, it is advantageous. The most effective way to learn any subject is to try to figure out exactly why a wrong position is wrong. And sometimes even a complete disaster of a theory will have a few salvageable pearls of wisdom that can't be found anywhere else. The rationalist forum Less Wrong teaches the idea of steelmanning, rebuilding a stupid position into the nearest intelligent position and then seeing what you can learn from it. So this is the ethos of this blog, and we proceed, as Abraham Lincoln put it, "with malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right."

Also Austin, Seattle, Tokyo, Rome, Mumbai, etc. We have two Southern California meetups this weekend: Los Angeles at 6:30 PM Saturday October 8 at 11841 Wagner St, Culver City. San Diego at 3 PM on Sunday, October 9, at Bird Park, these coordinates. See here for more details. I think I'll be able to make it to both; if for some reason that changes I'll try to update you by Open Thread beforehand. Feel free to come even if you've never been to a meetup before, even if you only recently started reading the blog, even if you're not "the typical ACX reader", even if you hate us and everything we stand for, etc. There are usually 50-100 people at these so you should be able to lose yourself in the crowd. Also coming up this weekend are meetups in Boise, Austin, Salt Lake City, Tokyo, Toulouse, Cologne, Rome, Hatten, Poznan, St. Louis, Rochester (NY), Seattle, Mumbai, and Oklahoma City. You can find times and places here.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/how-trustworthy-are-supplements [EDIT: LabDoor responds here] [Epistemic status: not totally sure of any of this, I welcome comments by people who know more.] Not as in "do supplements work?". As in "if you buy a bottle of ginseng from your local store, will it really contain parts of the ginseng plant? Or will it just be sugar and sawdust and maybe meth?" There are lots of stories going around that 30% or 80% or some other very high percent of supplements are totally fake, with zero of the active ingredient. I think these are misinformation. In the first part of this post, I want to review how this story started and why I no longer believe it. In the second and third, I'll go over results from lab tests and testimonials from industry insiders. In the fourth, I'll try to provide rules of thumb for how likely supplements are to be real. I. Two Big Studies That Started The Panic Around Fake Supplements These are Newmaster (2013) and an unpublished study sponsored by NY attorney general Eric Schneiderman in 2015. Both used a similar technique called DNA barcoding, where scientists check samples (in this case, herbal supplements) for fragments of DNA (in this case, from the herbs the supplements supposedly came from). Both found abysmal results. Newmaster found that a third of herbal supplements tested lacked any trace of the relevant herb, instead seeming to be some other common plant like rice. Schneiderman's study was even more damning, finding that eighty percent of herbal supplements lacked the active ingredient. These results were extensively and mostly uncritically signal-boosted by mainstream media, for example the New York Times (1, 2) and NPR (1, 2), mostly from the perspective that supplements were a giant scam and needed to be regulated by the FDA. The pro-supplement American Botanical Council struck back, publishing a long report arguing that DNA barcoding was inappropriate here. Many herbal supplements are plant extracts, meaning that the plant has one or two medically useful chemicals, and supplement manufacturers purify those chemicals without including a bunch of random leaves and stems and things. Sometimes these purified extracts don't include plant DNA; other times the purification process involves heating and chemical reactions that degrade the DNA beyond the point of detectability. Meanwhile, since supplements may include only a few mg of the active ingredient, it's a common practice to spread it through the capsule with a "filler", with powdered rice being among the most common. So when DNA barcoders find that eg a ginseng supplement has no ginseng DNA, but lots of rice DNA, this doesn't mean anything sinister is going on.