I don’t know how to say this but I very much doubt you’re actually being censored… This sounds like a bug. Maybe not but I think you should probably be a touch more restrained before claiming censorship… Loudly.
I strongly suggest you copy your content into a new post and use the proper formatting and hit publish. You were clearly in dramatic violation of policy the first time, now you’re clearly compliant. So try again.
And maybe get some more sleep. You mentioned needing it in comments and you do sound stressed in a way sleep often helps.
I got a censorship notice (via a process that is itself a buggy mess) with an email providing a link to a DM that doesn’t show up in my list of DMs that are with “the normal kind of user User” instead of with “Lesswrong itself” (whose avatar has been bodged into the User category).
Here is the policy that I violated. I don’t know what other possible policies exist, that I could hypothetically have violated, but didn’t violate, as communicated via text that itself read to me as a kind of slop:
LessWrong aims for particularly high quality (and somewhat oddly-specific) discussion quality. We get a lot of content from new users and sadly can’t give detailed feedback on every piece we reject, but I generally recommend checking out our New User’s Guide, in particular the section on how to ensure your content is approved.
Your content didn’t meet the bar for at least the following reason(s):
This is an automated rejection. No LLM generated, assisted/co-written, or edited work. An LLM-detection service flagged your post as likely to have been substantially written or edited by an LLM. We’ve been having a wave of LLM written, co-written, or edited work that doesn’t meet our quality standards. LessWrong has fairly specific standards, and your first LessWrong post is sort of like the application to a college. It should be optimized for demonstrating that you can think clearly without AI assistance. See here for a more detailed explanation of our policy on using LLM generated content on LessWrong.
As such, we reject LLM generated posts. We also reject work that falls into some categories that are difficult to evaluate that typically turn out to not make much sense, which LLMs frequently steer people toward.*
“English is my second language, I’m using this to translate”
If English is your second language and you were using LLMs to help you translate, try writing the post yourself in your native language without any LLM assistance (for the writing itself) and using a different, preferably non-LLM translation software to translate it directly.
“What if I think this was a mistake?”
If you receive this rejection notice but think it was a mistake, if all 3 of the following criteria are true, you can message us on Intercom or at team@lesswrong.com and ask for reconsideration.
You wrote this yourself, without using LLMs to help you write or edit your content.
You did not chat extensively with LLMs to help you generate the ideas. (Using it briefly the way you’d use a search engine is fine. But, if you’re treating it more like a coauthor or test subject, we will not reconsider your post.)
Your post is not about AI consciousness/recursion/emergence, or novel interpretations of physics.
If any of those are false, sorry, we will not accept your post.
* (examples of work we don’t evaluate because it’s too time costly: case studies of LLM sentience, emergence, recursion, novel physics interpretations, or AI alignment strategies that you developed in tandem with an AI coauthor – AIs may seem quite smart but they aren’t actually a good judge of the quality of novel ideas.)
Also, Ollie seems to me to concur that there is a bunch of technical debt here (though he doesn’t use that keyword).
I think we’ll have to redo some of our internal systems here. The auto-rejections are built on top of the system that we built for manual rejections, and in those cases it made sense for the rejection to be final. But this makes less sense when it’s an automated system, and when the rejection reason is easy to fix.
Oh but also… thank you for this <3
And maybe get some more sleep. You mentioned needing it in comments and you do sound stressed in a way sleep often helps.
I think the stress is related to the world being on fire, and full of moral horror, and this topic being very close to the central causal mechanism (related to unclear thinking and feelings around Justice processes) in the preeminent institution that possibly could or would ever hope to fix the ambient problems in the world.
I appreciate your attempt to point to my mental state as being in need of care, though, because that’s a kind motion, and valid in itself <3
I don’t know how to say this but I very much doubt you’re actually being censored… This sounds like a bug. Maybe not but I think you should probably be a touch more restrained before claiming censorship… Loudly.
I strongly suggest you copy your content into a new post and use the proper formatting and hit publish. You were clearly in dramatic violation of policy the first time, now you’re clearly compliant. So try again.
And maybe get some more sleep. You mentioned needing it in comments and you do sound stressed in a way sleep often helps.
It is easy for me to say that you’re wrong.
I got a censorship notice (via a process that is itself a buggy mess) with an email providing a link to a DM that doesn’t show up in my list of DMs that are with “the normal kind of user User” instead of with “Lesswrong itself” (whose avatar has been bodged into the User category).
Here is the policy that I violated. I don’t know what other possible policies exist, that I could hypothetically have violated, but didn’t violate, as communicated via text that itself read to me as a kind of slop:
Also, Ollie seems to me to concur that there is a bunch of technical debt here (though he doesn’t use that keyword).
Oh but also… thank you for this <3
I think the stress is related to the world being on fire, and full of moral horror, and this topic being very close to the central causal mechanism (related to unclear thinking and feelings around Justice processes) in the preeminent institution that possibly could or would ever hope to fix the ambient problems in the world.
I appreciate your attempt to point to my mental state as being in need of care, though, because that’s a kind motion, and valid in itself <3