Well that puts my concern to rest. Thanks!

Would also love to take the tests. If possible you could grab human test subjects from certain areas: a less wrong group, a reddit group, etc.

Who is aligning lesswrong? As lesswrong becomes more popularized due to AI growth, I'm concerned the quality of lesswrong discussion and posts has decreased since creating and posting have no filter. Obviously no filter has been a benefit while lesswrong was a hidden gem, only visible to those who can see its value. But as it becomes more popular, i think it should be obvious this site would drop in value if it trended towards reddit. Ideally existing users prevent that, but obviously that will tend to drift if new users can just show up. Are there methods in place for this issue?

Specific example: lots of posts seem like rehashes of things that have already been plainly discussed, and the quick takes section, and discussion on Discord, do a great job of cutting down on this particular issue. So maintaining high quality posts is not a pipe dream!

LLMs can be very good at coming up with names with some work:

A few I liked:
Sacrificial Contest
Mutual Ruin Game
Sacrificial Spiral
Universal Loss Competition
Collective Sacrifice Trap
Competition Deadlock
Competition Spiral
Competition Stalemate
Destructive Contest
Destructive Feedback Competition 
Conflict Feedback Spiral
 

Speculation: LLM Self Play into General Agent?
Suppose you got a copy of GPT4 post fine tuning + hardware to train it. How would the following play out?
1. Give it the rules and state of a competitive game, such as automatically generated tic-tac-toe variants.
2. Prompt it to use chain of thought to consider the best next move and select it.
3. Provide it with the valid set of output choices (like a json format determining action and position, similar to AutoGPT)
4. Run two of these against each other continuously, training on the results of the victor which can be objectively measured by the game's rules.
5. Benchmark it against a tiny subset of those variants that you want to manually program a bot with known ELO / have a human evaluate it.
6. Increase the complexity of the game when it reaches some general ability (eg tic tac toe variants > chess variants > Civilization 5 The Videogame variants) 

Note this is similar to what Gato did. https://deepmind.google/discover/blog/a-generalist-agent/

This would have an interesting side effect of making its output more legible in some ways than a normal NN agent, though I suppose there's no guarantee the chain of thought would stay legible English unless additional mechanisms were put in place, but this is just a high level idea.

Good to know. In that case the above solution is actually even safer than that.

Plausible Deniability yes. Reason agnostic. It's hard to know why someone might not want to be known to have their address here, but with my numbers above, they would have the statistical backing that 1/1000 addresses will appear in the set by chance, meaning a someone who wants to deny it could say "for every address actually in the set, 1000 will appear to be" so that's only a 1/1000 chance I actually took the survey! (Naively of course; rest in peace rationalist@lesswrong.com)

Thanks for your input. Though ideally we wouldn't have to go through an email server, it may just be required at some level of security.

As for the patterns, the nice thing is that with a small output space in the millions, there are tons of overlapping reasonable addresses even if you pin it down to a domain. Every English first and last name combo even without any numbers in it is already a lot larger than 10 million, meaning even targeted domains should have plenty of collisions.

I have done something similar using draw.io for arguments regarding a complex feature. Each point often had multiple counterpoints, which themselves sometimes split into other points. I think this is only necessary for certain discussions and should probably not be the default though.