$500 Write like lsusr competition
It’s been a while since I hosted a competition. This time there is prize money! $500.
Do you think you’re a better writer than me? Now is your chance to prove it.
I want to know whether human beings can pass for me. Your mission, should you choose to participate, is to write a Less Wrong post that is indistinguishable from one that I would write.
Schedule [Tentative]
December 22 (today): Competition is announced. You may begin posting entries.
December 28: Last day to submit entries.
December 31: Prediction markets resolve at exactly the new year, Berkeley timezone, when 2025 becomes 2026.
January 4: Last day for winners to claim prizes.
All timezones are Berkeley Time (UTC−12).
This schedule is tentative because I often encounter technical difficulties when running competitions like this.
About your entries
Create a new Less Wrong account. This way nobody will be able to figure out who you are just from the account name. (You may submit multiple posts from a single Less Wrong account. However, each account is only eligible for a single cash prize.)
From that same account, create a comment on this post with a link to your post so others can read it and so I know to create a prediction market for it.
AI slop will be disqualified. Any entry written by a well-intentioned human being is permitted. To my knowledge, people have abided by the honor system in my previous contests. If you want to be certain whether a post counts as “AI slop”, then you can DM me privately to ask.
AI is allowed for research, spellchecking, and asking questions like “Does this thing I wrote sound like something lsusr would write?” Having it correct a word or phrase on occasion is fine. Just don’t have it write the thing for you.
All of your entries’ post bodies must start with must start with “[This is an entry for lsusr’s write-like-lsusr competition.]”. Example:
Lorem Ipsum
[This is an entry for lsusr’s write-like-lsusr competition.]
Dolor sit amet.
About lsusr’s entries
Lsusr will enter an integer number of posts into this competition. That number might be zero.
Lsusr entries (if they exist) will not be posted under the username lsusr.
Lsusr entries (if they exist) will not cheat by doing things like filming a video of myself or using a ghostwriter. My entries are allowed to embed old videos from my YouTube channel.
Lsusr entries (if they exist) will follow my usual ethical guidelines, which means they’re things I believe are true and I believe they are valuable. By “valuable” I mean that I feel posting them on Less Wrong makes the world a better place.
Lsusr entries (if they exist) will be no less than 500 words.
Lsusr entries (if they exist) will use AI for no part of the competition other than research, fact-checking and spell-checking.
Lsusr entries (if they exist) will start with “[This is an entry for lsusr’s write-like-lsusr competition.]”.
Lsusr entries (if they exist) will be written by me, lsusr.
I will not intentionally manipulate the prediction markets.
If you violate these constraints, then you will be disqualified because it should be obvious to everyone that the entry was not written by lsusr. (Except the AI constraint, which is largely honor system.)
Evaluation
The judging of this competition will be done by prediction markets. I have created a Set of Yes/No questions on Manifold. I have a budget of ~10,000 mana which I might use to boost the question prior to resolution.
You may notice that 10,000 mana is worth significantly less than the $1,000 prize pool. You may wonder whether arbitrage via deliberate manipulation of the prediction markets is permitted. Yes, it is permitted. Does this mean that that you are allowed to buy a bunch of YES or NO right before the prediction markets expire? Yes it does.
Does this mean you are allowed to run a propaganda campaign in the comments? Yes, but please keep it contained to this competition. Feel free to keep your misinformation compaign confined to the comments section of posts (including this one) that have voluntarily opted into the competition.
Anticipated Questions
-
Q: I have a post idea that I don’t think would be mistaken for an lsusr post, but it’s valuable and human-written. May I enter it in the competition?
-
A: Yes.
-
Q: I want to win by manipulating the prediction markets without writing a post myself. What do I do?
-
A: Maybe team up with someone writing a real entry? There are no rules against collaboration. Plots are fun!
-
Q: Who funded this?
-
A: Me.
-
Q: Can I volunteer to help with this competition?
-
A: Yes! Creating, managing and resolving the prediction markets is a hassle I’d rather someone else deal with. If you’d like to volunteer for this duty, please message me. (If you are the one managing the prediction markets, then you are disqualified from participating in the competition and manipulating the markets.)
Prizes
The winner will be whoever has the highest % likely “written by lsusr”. The 2nd place will be whoever has the second-highest % likely “written by lsusr”. (Assuming there are <100 entries.)
1st prize: $250
2nd prize: $100
3rd prize: $50
?????: $100
Prizes will be distribited by Venmo. If you don’t want to receive money via Venmo, then I can instead donate 110% of your prize to the charity of your choice or 120% to Partners in Health. You may request prizes in kind in lieu of a cash payment.
Potential Changes
I don’t anticipate changing the rules, but just in case something goes horribly wrong or I made a mistake somewhere, I reserve the right to revise the rules over the next 48 hours.
[link to the prediction market]
- $500 Write like lsusr competition—Results by (1 Jan 2026 20:53 UTC; 39 points)
- Human Values by (23 Dec 2025 21:08 UTC; 32 points)
- [Book Review] • → 🚹 → • by (29 Dec 2025 17:50 UTC; 26 points)
- Rules clarification for the Write like lsusr competition by (23 Dec 2025 21:12 UTC; 8 points)
- [Book Review] “Reality+” by David Chalmers by (24 Dec 2025 19:14 UTC; 4 points)
<🔔 dingggggggggggg 🔔>
I humbly submit to you this post:
The Benefits of Meditation Come From Telling People That You Meditate
Namaste 🙏
<🔔 dingggggggggggg 🔔>
I have created a prediction market on Manifold and am awaiting moderator approval.
[Edit: This comment originally and incorrectly said I was using the wrong prediction market platform.]
So you’re going with metaculus instead of manifold? This is important as AFAIK you can’t just buy voting power in metaculus.
Whoops! I got Metaculus confused with Manifold. Thank you for the correction. I have succeeded in creating a prediction market on Manifold.
Also, manifold has the option to make markets with a bunch of different possible resolutions displayed in one place(they’re called SET markets in the market creation menu), maybe you should make one of those?
I considered that, but it only works if I publicly precommit to limiting myself to using zero or one masks, and I don’t want to do that.
Because only one resolution is possible? That’s true for Multiple Choice markets, but not Set markets.
Do I have to pick all of the options at the beginning or can I add additional options after the betting has started?
You can add options later.
Really? How? I just tried creating one right now and I couldn’t find a UI for adding options after trading starts.
Hmmm, did you tick “You” under “who can add new options” in the creation menu? I just made a Set market myself and there’s an immediately visible UI element to add new options above the existing answers.
Found it! Thank you! I am switching over to the Set UI.
I’m mainly interested not in who best writes like lsusr, but in knowing which of the entries were intended as serious postings in their own right. I hope for all of them, but the goal might squeeze out other considerations.
Mu. My entry was originally intended to be worthwhile in-and-of-itself—and was based on an idea I’d had long before the challenge—but I realized halfway through writing it that the central conceit didn’t work the way I wanted. This would usually be the point where I either scrapped it or radically reworked it . . . but I’m fanatically pro-challenges-and-contests-on-LW and wanted to get something in before the deadline, so I forced myself to finish and then just hit submit without an editing pass.
My post was intended seriously (well, parts of it are obviously a joke) and I didn’t put much effort into making it sound like lsusr, as the rules explicitly said I could post anyway. Besides, since I am lsusr I don’t need to imitate myself.
The serious parts of my post are serious, anyway.
That is an extremely unusual usage of the term “high-effort.”
I agree. Either “worthwhile” or “valuable” would be better here.
I agree. I have changed “high-effort” to valuable, since that’s what I had intended to communicate.
It’s a bit of a shame that the market resolves at an exact time. Randomized resolution time makes the gaming at the end much more interesting, because you have time to think about the optimal next move (but of course not infinite time.) It is of course random regardless, but without intentional randomness it’s about network lag and manifold server responsiveness, which aren’t as exciting to model. Perhaps “resolves exactly at new year, +- N(0, 10 minutes)” if this falls within the tentativeness of the schedule.
That might be worthwhile in the future. Since this is important and I’ve already declared an end date, I will not be changing the resolution time this tournament unless something goes wrong like technical difficulties.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/zfWEkJxbraymvqtjS/meditations-on-suffering-1
AI says this is highly similar to lsusr, analysis in reply
I have added MeditationsOnShrimp to the prediction market.
AI analysis got moderated away unfortunately. Chatgpt gave it a 8.5/10 style consistency and very high conceptual alignment (in Soviet Russia, AI align you!) It says my contest viability is strong, even without changes (I made none of the suggested changes, one of which was to leave a section without a conclusion because apparently lsusr (aka me) is known to do that.) It also said I was too clear. Weird.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/JzDG7d6J5kZqhQiiT/orpheus-basilisk
(Just as soon as mods approve it.)
Confession time: this one was me.
(Unfortunately I forgot both the password to that account and what email address I used to register it, so my only evidence is that I made this username a weird&janky reference/pun on my own: pulwat → Pul Wat Aa (character from Immortal Defense, the only good Tower Defense game) → aa → AbstractApplic. Fortunately I have no objection to the prize being donated to Partners in Health, which I imagine is the default outcome for unclaimed prizes.)
Good job! I thought your entry was >50% real. Most convincing fake.
You and I have been in touch for a long time. I trust that pulwat is really you. In the unlikely event that pulwat is not you, the real pulwat can trivially disprove your claim.
Here, as arranged elsewhere, is your prize.
I have added you to the prediction market.
Note to self: I have yet to add my entries posted as lsdev and xhnk7jwvqj-max to the prediction market.
I have added lsdev to the prediction market.
The current leader at Manifold (“rules clarification...”) doesn’t have a link to it from here?
It’s on Manifold. Here’s a link.
I submit “Book Review: • → 🚹 → •”
(note that my entry was submitted before the December 28 midnight deadline although only approved to publish the following day)
I have added you to the prediction market.
How To Create A Lsusr Golem
I have added you to the prediction market.
Entry: [Book Review] “Reality+” by David Chalmers
I submit The Ones who Feed their Children
I have added xhnk7jwvqj-max to the prediction market.
I have submitted an entry titled Human Values.
I have added it to the prediction market.