The problems with LLM-aided writing are discussed in depth in the linked standards for LLM content on the site.
Whether or not future AI will be useful for protecting against takeover isn’t all that relevant to whether current LLMs should be helping you write and think.
Having said that, I think the LessWrong standards are both fairly strict and fairly vague, so this post probably does meet them, and I think it does contribute to the discussion, because the ideas and claims are human-reviewed in depth. Because it contributes and this is a vital and IMO neglected area, I’ve given it a big upvote.
However, I do find it a bit too LLM-styled for my liking. It’s pretty long and vague relative to the actual ideas and claims. This is the hallmark of “AI slop”. I think you’ve put real thought into this, but I would be more comfortable with a more thoroughly human-written version.
The problems with LLM-aided writing are discussed in depth in the linked standards for LLM content on the site.
Whether or not future AI will be useful for protecting against takeover isn’t all that relevant to whether current LLMs should be helping you write and think.
Having said that, I think the LessWrong standards are both fairly strict and fairly vague, so this post probably does meet them, and I think it does contribute to the discussion, because the ideas and claims are human-reviewed in depth. Because it contributes and this is a vital and IMO neglected area, I’ve given it a big upvote.
However, I do find it a bit too LLM-styled for my liking. It’s pretty long and vague relative to the actual ideas and claims. This is the hallmark of “AI slop”. I think you’ve put real thought into this, but I would be more comfortable with a more thoroughly human-written version.
Substanctive comments provided separately