This means that the Jesus Christ market is quite interesting! You could make it even more interesting by replacing it with "This Market Will Resolve No At The End Of 2025": then it would be purely a market on how much Polymarket traders will want money later in the year.

It's unclear how this market would resolve. I think you meant something more like a market on "2+2=5"?

I read this and still don't understand what an acceptable target slot is.

Then it will often confabulate a reason why the correct thing it said was actually wrong. So you can never really trust it, you have to think about what makes sense and test your model against reality. 

But to some extent that's true for any source of information. LLMs are correct about a lot of things and you can usually guess which things they're likely to get wrong.

LLM hallucination is good epistemic training. When I code, I'm constantly asking Claude how things work and what things are possible. It often gets things wrong, but it's still helpful. You just have to use it to help you build up a gears level model of the system you are working with. Then, when it confabulates some explanation you can say "wait, what?? that makes no sense" and it will say "You're right to question these points - I wasn't fully accurate" and give you better information.

See No convincing evidence for gradient descent in activation space

It's not really feasible for the feature to rely on people reading this PSA to work well. The correct usage needs to be obvious.

When I go on LessWrong, I generally just look at the quick takes and then close the tab. Quick takes cause me to spend more time on LessWrong but spend less time reading actual posts.

On the other hand, sometimes quick takes are very high quality and I read them and get value from them when I may not have read the same content as a full post.

I find it very annoying that standard reference culture seems to often imply giving extremely positive references unless someone was truly awful, since it makes it much harder to get real info from references

Agreed, but also most of the world does operate in this reference culture. If you choose to take a stand against it, you might screw over a decent candidate by providing only a quite positive recommendation.

Hey, long time no see! Thanks, I've correct it:

$\frac{\partial F\left(e_{\alpha }\right)}{\partial \alpha }=\frac{\partial F\left(e_{\alpha }\right)}{\partial e_{\alpha }}\frac{\partial e_{\alpha }}{\partial \alpha }$

$=\frac{\partial F\left(e_{\alpha }\right)}{\partial e_{\alpha }}\frac{\partial [e_{\text{clean}}+\alpha \times (e_{\text{corr}}-e_{\text{clean}}\left)\right]}{\partial \alpha }$

$=\frac{\partial F\left(e_{\alpha }\right)}{\partial e_{\alpha }}(e_{\text{corr}}-e_{\text{clean}})$

Set $\alpha =0$, ie. $e_{\alpha }=e_{clean}$

$=(e_{\text{corr}}-e_{\text{clean}})\frac{\partial F\left(e_{\text{clean}}\right)}{\partial e_{\text{clean}}}$

It's surprising he bought the gun so long in advance. There should be footage of him buying it I think as required by California law.