Is your goal to identify double-cruxes in a podcast? If so, our tool might not be the best for that, since it's supposed to be used in live conversations as a kind of a mediator. Currently, the Double-Crux Bot can only be used either as a bot that you add to your Slack / Discord, or by joining our Discord channel.

Probably more useful for you is this: In a recent hackathon, Tilman Bayer produced a prompt that was used to extract double-cruxes in from a debate. As a model they used Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking, you can see the prompt here: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Igs6T-elz61xysRCMQmZVX8ysfVX4NgTItwXPnrwrak/edit#slide=id.g33c29319e5a_0_0 

Yes I've heard about it (I'm based in Switzerland myself!)
I don't think it changes the situation that much though, since OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google are still mostly American-owned companies

If we don't build fast enough, then the authoritarian countries could win.

If you build AI for the US, you're advancing the capabilities of an authoritarian country at this point.
I think people who are worried about authoritarian regimes getting access to AGI should seriously reconsider whether advancing US leadership in AI is the right thing to do. After the new Executive Order, Trump seems to have sole interpretation of law, and there are indications that the current admin won't follow court rulings. I think it's quite likely that the US won't be a democracy soon, and this argument about advancing AI in democracies doesn't apply to the US anymore.

Really interesting work! I have two questions:

1. In the model organisms of misalignment -section it is stated that AI companies might be nervous about researching model organisms because it could increase the likelihood of new regulation, since it would provide more evidence on concerning properties in AI system. Doesn't this depend on what kind of model organisms the company expects to be able to develop? If it's difficult to find model organisms, we would have evidence that alignment is easier and thus there would be less need for regulation.  

2. Why didn't you listed AI control work as one of the areas that may be slow to progress without efforts from outside labs? According to your incentives analysis it doesn't seem like AI companies have many incentives to pursue this kind of work, and there were zero papers on AI control.

I've also found "spreadsheet literacy" a recurring skill

What exactly do you use spreadsheets for? Any examples?

Unfortunately the bot works only in Discord and Slack.

Here's another about biking:

Sure! Here's a simple conversation about tea:

Filtering for "people who can afford to pay for a workshop" works pretty well.

This is surprising to me. It seems to assume income is just based on general competence, which doesn't seem true to me. There are a lot of people who seem to have these traits who would find it really difficult to pay for this, and vice versa

I can see why you think it would be contradictory. The idea in the example was that both of you want better working environment in your workplace, but you have different opinions on how to get there. Whereas the disclaimers were about situations where this is not the case. For example, a situation where the other person doesn't care about a safe working environment. Does that make it clearer?

We are probably going to change the example if it's unclear though