Oliver Kuperman

Karma: 54

Oliver Kuperman 18 Mar 2026 15:10 UTC
1 point
−1
in reply to: RobertM’s comment on: The New LessWrong LLM Policy is Worse Than You Think
Thanks for clarifying. So posts that place 100% of their content within will be approved? What about 50%? 45%? Will this content be disadvantaged? I think a lot of the same concerns apply, even if this policy is somewhat less strict than I thought.

Oliver Kuperman 18 Mar 2026 0:19 UTC
2 points
0
in reply to: Ben Pace’s comment on: The New LessWrong LLM Policy is Worse Than You Think
As I alluded to in this post, my thoughts on LLM writing are multifaceted. I think that LLMs lack the creativity of human writers and are not a substitute for good ideas and a sense of direction. However, I think someone who has a good idea of what they want to write (and a compelling subject to write about) can use LLMs to save considerable amounts of time and also improve their writing on the margins.
Because you asked, I think this recent post of mine is a good example of how LLMs can help with writing. Compared to the baseline of this post (which I think is not particularly well written), the example post is considerably smoother, while also being faithful to the vision I had for the post.

Oliver Kuperman 17 Mar 2026 22:42 UTC
1 point
−2
in reply to: Seth Herd’s comment on: The New LessWrong LLM Policy is Worse Than You Think
Making things sound better without being better is does not bring upvotes here (usually). We are blessed that it’s not required or appreciated on LW. Mod policy is an attempt to keep LW a special and better place than the rest of the internet.
...
The other thing to think of is this: if we make everyone an excellent writer without improving their thinkingk we’ll lose the signal we currently have that helps us read good ideas by noting good writing.
Okay. Which interpretation of the role of writing quality on LessWrong would you like to defend?
Jokes aside, I think everyone writing in a better manner would be better, as better writing is typically more pleasant to read and also conveys ideas more effectively than worse writing.
As to your point about writing quality being one of the best gauges we have for human thought being put into writing, I can kinda see that, but if the moderators want a better gauge for high effort writing, they should put more effort into finding new ways to measure effort, instead of just making a policy that tangentially affects this and either won’t really be enforceable anyway or lead to a lot of false positives.
I think tracking the amount of time spent editing/ number of edits on a given LessWrong post would be a good way to judge the amount of effort placed into a post (this should not be too difficult to track/implement, and for people who write their posts in google drive or word, I doubt it would be a huge inconvenience to move over to LessWrong).

Oliver Kuperman 17 Mar 2026 22:08 UTC
0 points
−2
in reply to: Ninety-Three’s comment on: The New LessWrong LLM Policy is Worse Than You Think
We are going to be more strictly enforcing the “no LLM output” rule by normalizing our auto-moderation logic to treat posts by approved^[7] users similarly to posts by new users—that is, they’ll be automatically rejected if they score above a certain threshold in our automated LLM content detection pipeline. Having spent a few months staring at what’s been coming down the pipe, we are also going to be lowering that threshold.
The above quote lays out pretty clearly that substantial LLM usage will be banned. This is further reinforced by the quote of Oliver Habryka I included:
We intentionally made the choice that light editing is fine, and heavy editing is not fine (where the line is somewhere between “is it doing line edits and suggesting changes to a relatively sparse number of individual sentences, or is it rewriting multiple sentences in a row and/or adding paragraphs”).

Oliver Kuperman 17 Mar 2026 21:50 UTC
1 point
−2
in reply to: Seth Herd’s comment on: The New LessWrong LLM Policy is Worse Than You Think
I don’t think catching bots plays any real role in the policy. It’s largely IMO about preventing pollution of the epistemic commons by LLM slop.
I think I responded to this line of thinking a bit in my post, but I think this “pollution” is greatly overblown. Compared to humans, LLMs have been found to be better at analyzing complex texts, less likely to believe myths, and third statement to make this sentence sound better (the last part of this sentence is a joke and demonstrates the importance of boilerplate in writing).
Editing: light editing is allowed. Heavy editing always changes the meaning. Whether it’s changed a lot is specific to the writing and very much a judgment call. But saying “make sure you looked closely” is entirely unenforceable. You’d assume lots of people just aren’t going to take the time.
The line between light and heavy editing is blurry, and if you assume people aren’t even going to take the time to review LLM outputs, why would you expect them not to make false claims on their own accord? This is a problem with humans, not LLMs.
So the implication is that there’s a different rule for Neel than for the rest of us. Which makes sense; Neel has proven his contributions to be high-quality, however he’s produced them.
Maybe just ban LLMs for new users or create a karma threshold after which LLM usage is allowed? It seems like the majority of the rationale for the ban is “unscrupulous users will use LLMs irresponsibly and produce writing which is just good enough to not be downvoted, gradually crowding out higher effort posts”, but if this is the case, then the policy should be more targeted towards such users. People with substantial post history have hopefully already shown themselves to be fairly scrupulous.
Without targeting, the justification for this policy becomes tantamount to “we should ban driving, because some people will drive drunk”. How about we focus on those most likely to drive drunk instead of just banning cars for everyone?

Oliver Kuperman 17 Mar 2026 18:47 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: lemonhope’s comment on: The New LessWrong LLM Policy is Worse Than You Think
I think bot detection is getting more and more difficult, but I do not think we are at the point where less invasive mouse-capturing procedures are ineffective. This is reflected by the fact that a “bot-pocalypse” where LessWrong is overwhelmed by non-human posters was not referenced in the original post justifying the new LLM policy. Why risk burning down the house when mouse-traps can still work?

Oliver Kuperman 10 Mar 2026 14:27 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: Stephen Martin’s comment on: Stephen Martin’s Shortform
I think the second part of that statement is also somewhat problematic. At some point in the future, we may want to create artificial intelligences that deserve personhood, as digital beings are likely the best way to convert the resources of the universe into utility given their potential to be more energy efficient than physical beings.

Oliver Kuperman 10 Mar 2026 0:48 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: Karl Krueger’s comment on: Oliver Kuperman’s Shortform
For your examples, they are either used by locals informally (“The gulf” as a shorthand for gulf of Mexico is rarely used by national publications), by foreigners (who often give illogical or simplified names to things because the original would be too complicated), or apply to very large regions (which in my opinion, is less annoying because it is less self important). The fact that the San Francisco area gets its own special name that is frequently used despite the fact that there is nothing especially impressive about that particular feature of the area is slightly annoying imo. If people in the Bay Area want to colloquially call it that, I wouldn’t mind, but the fact that national news refers to it as such is slightly annoying to me.

Oliver Kuperman 9 Mar 2026 22:33 UTC
0 points
1
on: Oliver Kuperman’s Shortform
This isn’t that important, but the “term Bay Area” has always annoyed me (as someone from Tampa), as it appropriates a generic geographical feature that many cities contain. Should we start calling Denver the “Mountain Area”? New York City the “Island Area”? Phoenix the “Desert Area”? Oklahoma City the “Plains Area”? The only reason the “Bay Area” sounds normal is because people are used to it.

Oliver Kuperman 9 Mar 2026 0:36 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: Seth Herd’s comment on: How does LessWrong’s Ranking Algorithm Work?
Thanks for the advice. I guess I can see why some would be opposed to this, although personally I would not mind if people reposted more often (perhaps a good middle position would be to bar reposts from making the front page until reaching a certain karma threshold). I think I’ll leave my reposts up, as I unpublished a couple of my originals. Nevertheless, LessWrong should make its guidelines on reposting clearer, because I did not see any rule against this, and could see myself continuing to repost if I did not ask this question.

Oliver Kuperman 8 Mar 2026 23:43 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: cata’s comment on: How does LessWrong’s Ranking Algorithm Work?
How? I would only do this if I got positive karma on the first post?

Oliver Kuperman 8 Mar 2026 20:24 UTC
1 point
−5
in reply to: Vanessa Kosoy’s comment on: How does LessWrong’s Ranking Algorithm Work?
I agree that spam can negatively impact a site, but if my posts is only being seen by a couple of people and are still getting upvoted, I do not see the issue with reposting provided I edit the post a bit and wait at least a day between posts.

I also do not understand how the whole front-page/ personal blog distinction works, which makes me think once again only a few people are actually able to see certain posts to begin with.

Oliver Kuperman 7 Mar 2026 22:37 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: Eli Tyre’s comment on: Oliver Kuperman’s Shortform
I mean, I think the real issue with the originial Pascal’s Wager is it’s actually impossible to actually calculate probabilities or assign utilities to different outcomes, as there is a literally infinite amount of conceivable deities (including deities with opposite pay-off matrices) and also infinite utilities kinda break decision theory.

For most realistic scenarios though, I think Pascalian logic is more or less necessary to some extent, and without it you get pretty bizarre conclusions. Like imagine a genie offers you a button which has a 99.9% chance of saving a life but a .1% chance of killing everyone, I think it’s pretty clear that pressing the button is a mistake.

The pro-choice and pro-life debate is a lot more complicated than the button example, but no one seems to want to do the actual work of justifying their viewpoints despite significant opposition being present, a status I would like to call epistemic arrogance.

Oliver Kuperman 7 Mar 2026 14:25 UTC
3 points
0
in reply to: Eli Tyre’s comment on: Oliver Kuperman’s Shortform
The issue is I think the asymmetry is so great that you have to essentially be like 99% confident in your position to be justified, especially when the compromise position I laid out should prevent a good portion of unwanted pregnancy, especially if you subsidize elective procedures such as vasectomy and provide more childcare support. I think the best arguments for the pro-choice side are consequentialist in nature, but the consequentialist calculations are very complex in this case, so I think it is better to rely on a deontological framework, which is what most people do anyways.

Oliver Kuperman 7 Mar 2026 3:56 UTC
3 points
0
in reply to: Mitchell_Porter’s comment on: [Error communicating with LW2 server]
Yes, that is a good example of a reason why Dustin Moskovitz doesn’t need to win for this to be a worthwhile effort. I think I’ll repost this to see if anyone has any good counter arguments then I think I’ll try to send a letter to Mr. Moskovitz to convince him to run for president. TBH, I am not sure if he would be even interested, but there is no other American Pro-AI safety name that comes to mind that is as qualified or committed to AI Safety as Dustin Moskovitz.

Oliver Kuperman 7 Mar 2026 3:15 UTC
0 points
2
in reply to: Karl Krueger’s comment on: Oliver Kuperman’s Shortform
I am vegan, but for non-vegans I think it’s more ignorance and self-interest than epistemic arrogance, as the vast, vast majority of most societies are non-vegan, whereas there is at least an order of magnitude more people who support pro-life positions, and people don’t personally benefit from non-veganism in the same way pro-choice folks benefit from their own position.

However, I would claim most non-vegans who have thought deeply about vegan arguments, and don’t make arguments from the angle of nematode welfare, are epistemically arrogant.

Oliver Kuperman 6 Mar 2026 21:20 UTC
4 points
−3
on: Oliver Kuperman’s Shortform
Being Pro-Choice Seems Epistemically Arrogant, Thoughts?
When it comes to the issue of abortion, both sides seem to speak with a sense of certainty I do not believe is justified. However, the moral implications of a government embracing the wrong policy under a pro-life framework are far worse than the moral implications of being wrong under a pro-choice framework, so it seems to me it is far easier to support the former.
Note: I think exceptions in the case of rape and the health of the mother are morally permissible, contraception should be freely accessible to all citizens, and public schools should teach the importance of being careful about sex.

Oliver Kuperman 20 Sep 2025 19:44 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: Dagon’s comment on: The Case for a Pro-AI-Safety Political Party in the US
Thanks for stating your objection to my argument. I agree with you and that is why I argue for the formation of a centrist party with AI Safety as an important issue, rather than a party which literally only speaks about AI, as the latter party would come across as unserious (even the Green Party does not do this with climate change). You can see the “What about other issues?” section about some general positions I think a party should take.
I also think an effective political party could grow support for AI Safety by leveraging media coverage in order to bring to light the dangers of AI and the necessity of regulation, so even if it starts as a fringe prospect, it will gain momentum over time.
To your second point about existing parties being able to adopt this as part of the platform, along with the potential bad optics of EAs/AI doomers “invading” existing parties, I think it is simply harder to succeed in political party primaries than as a third party candidate due to political party primaries having an unlevel playing field which favors catering to the idiosyncrasies of the party’s base and major party players.
To back this up, I do not see Chase Oliver getting anywhere as a Republican nominee, but he did gain some notoriety as a third party candidate. While it is in theory possible for pro-AI Safety rationalists to gain power through traditional parties, I feel like this would take a very long time and is less likely to succeed.
Ultimately, however, even if you think this has a slim chance of succeeding, I see some electoral effort as the only plausible way of achieving necessary government support for AI Safety, so I feel like something like this is still worth it if there is not a clear alternative.

Oliver Kuperman 20 Sep 2025 19:22 UTC
14 points
11
on: FTX, Golden Geese, and The Widow’s Mite
Your dedication to acting morally is admirable. However, I think the underlying mindset behind this post is a bit counterproductive. First of all, you did not steal the money in any meaningful sense. If someone robbed a bank and used some of the money to buy dinner from Outback Steakhouse, nobody would accuse the steakhouse of robbing money from the bank. Furthermore, you did everything a reasonable person would do in your shoes, emailing the FTX estate, calling them, ect. It’s not like you have done nothing to return the funds, or are just using them to fulfill your personal interests.
Your argument about the global economy is similarly overly idealistic. Yes, theft affects the economy in negative ways by reducing trust, but there is no way that your actions would contribute to this. The vast majority of people would agree that you have fulfilled your duty.
Thus, I think simply donating the money to a valid cause is the best thing you can do with the money at this point. You have done right by most potential deontological/ virtue ethics frameworks of ethics already, so there is no reason not to lean into utilitarianism and do the most good instead of contorting yourself into avoiding all things that FTX may have thought was good. As long as people who benefited from FTX attempted to return their unspent funds before donating it to charity, that would get a full pass from me.
Furthermore, if we extend the principle that you can’t use money derived from unethical sources further, you would not be able to spend any money, as much money is derived from arguably more unethical sources. People who run massive factor farms that cause mass suffering to animals contribute lots of money to the economy. Defense contractors who sell weapons to oppressive governments also do so. Refusing to use any “tainted money” could rationally commit you to refusing to accept payments from such workers, which is obviously flawed, as you doing so has little bearing on their actions, and would be very difficult to implement in practice.

Oliver Kuperman 10 Sep 2025 20:26 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: Seth Herd’s comment on: The Case for An AI Safety Political Party in the US
I mean, the Green New Deal was widely influential? Sure it did not pass, but I think it’s pretty easy to argue the Green Party had an effect on US environmental policy. Did you read the section on that which included a study which demonstrated Green Party candidates entering into competitive elections had an effect on Democratic Party platforms? It’s not an airtight case, but little is in politics and it’s not a stretch to think the Democratic Party being very supportive of environmental policies is at least partially due to the influence of the US Green Party.

On the issue of politicization, that is one of the reasons I propose a third party that has generally moderate positions. However, even if the issue does get politicized before the party is able to influence policy, I don’t see how that is a bad thing compared to the status quo? I’d rather have one party support AI safety and another party oppose it than both parties ignoring the issue.
On reposting, I am not sure what I am supposed to do when nobody leaves any comments? The point of this essay was not so much to convince people as to figure out why people have not vigorously pursued this option before. This is the biggest platform for serious discussion on AI safety, and this essay is written for an audience that already takes AI somewhat seriously, so I do not know what else to do with this.
Anyways thanks for the feedback.