Any group with a lot of people and without the strictest filtering will have displays of horrendous epistemology, I think one can judge LessWrong by whether popular posts with bad epistemology have it called out in the comments, and I’d say that’s mostly the case
Skimmed twitter.search(
lesswrong -lesswrong.com -roko -from:grok -grok since:2026-01-01 until:2026-01-28)negative
https://x.com/fluxtheorist/status/2015642426606600246
https://x.com/repligate/status/2011670780577530024 compares pedantic terminology complaint by peer reviewer of some paper to LW.
https://x.com/kave_rennedy/status/2011131987168542835
https://x.com/Kaustubh102/status/2010703086512378307 first post rejected; claims not written by LLM, but rejection may be because “you did not chat extensively with LLMs to help you generate the ideas.”
positive
During my search, it was hard to ignore the positive comments. So here are some examples of positive comments too.
https://x.com/boazbaraktcs/status/2016403406202806581
https://x.com/joshycodes/status/2009423714685989320
https://x.com/TutorVals/status/2008474014839390312
otherwise interesting
https://x.com/RyanPGreenblatt/status/2008623582235242821
https://x.com/nearcyan/status/2010945226114994591