"10x engineers" are a thing, and if we assume they're high-agency people always looking to streamline and improve their workflows, we should expect them to be precisely the people who get a further 10x boost from LLMs. Have you observed any specific people suddenly becoming 10x more prolific?

In addition to the objection from Archimedes, another reason this is unlikely to be true is that 10x coders are often much more productive than other engineers because they've heavily optimized around solving for specific problems or skills that other engineers are bottlenecked by, and most of those optimizations don't readily admit of having an LLM suddenly inserted into the loop.

Not at the moment, but it is an obvious sort of thing to want.

Thanks for the heads up, we'll have this fixed shortly (just need to re-index all the wiki pages once).

Curated.  This post does at least two things I find very valuable:

1. Accurately represents differing perspectives on a contentious topic
2. Makes clear, epistemically legible arguments on a confusing topic

And so I think that this post both describes and advances the canonical "state of the argument" with respect to the Sharp Left Turn (and similar concerns).  I hope that other people will also find it helpful in improving their understanding of e.g. objections to basic evolutionary analogies (and why those objections shouldn't make you very optimistic).

Yes:

My model is that Sam Altman regarded the EA world as a memetic threat, early on, and took actions to defuse that threat by paying lip service / taking openphil money / hiring prominent AI safety people for AI safety teams.

In the context of the thread, I took this to suggest that Sam Altman never had any genuine concern about x-risk from AI, or, at a minimum, that any such concern was dominated by the social maneuvering you're describing.  That seems implausible to me given that he publicly expressed concern about x-risk from AI 10 months before OpenAI was publicly founded, and possibly several months before it was even conceived.

Sam Altman posted Machine intelligence, part 1^[1] on February 25th, 2015.  This is admittedly after the FLI conference in Puerto Rico, which is reportedly where Elon Musk was inspired to start OpenAI (though I can't find a reference substantiating his interaction with Demis as the specific trigger), but there is other reporting suggesting that OpenAI was only properly conceived later in the year, and Sam Altman wasn't at the FLI conference himself.  (Also, it'd surprise me a bit if it took nearly a year, i.e. from Jan 2nd^[2] to Dec 11th^[3], for OpenAI to go from "conceived of" to "existing".)

1. ^{^}

   That of the famous "Development of superhuman machine intelligence (SMI) [1] is probably the greatest threat to the continued existence of humanity." quote.

2. ^{^}

   The FLI conference.

3. ^{^}

   OpenAI's public founding.

I think it's quite easy to read as condescending.  Happy to hear that's not the case!

I hadn't downvoted this post, but I am not sure why OP is surprised given the first four paragraphs, rather than explaining what the post is about, instead celebrate tree murder and insult their (imagined) audience:

so that no references are needed but those any LW-rationalist is expected to have committed to memory by the time of their first Lighthaven cuddle puddle

I don't think much has changed since this comment.  Maybe someone will make a new wiki page on the subject, though if it's not an admin I'd expect it to mostly be a collection of links to various posts/comments.

re: the table of contents, it's hidden by default but becomes visible if you hover your mouse over the left column on post pages.

I understand the motivation behind this, but there is little warning that this is how the forum works. There is no warning that trying to contribute in good faith isn't sufficient, and you may still end up partially banned (rate-limited) if they decide you are more noise than signal. Instead, people invest a lot only to discover this when it's too late.

In addition to the New User Guide that gets DMed to every new user (and is also linked at the top of our About page), we:

• Show this comment above the new post form to new users who haven't already had some content approved by admins.  (Note that it also links to the new user's guide.)

  

• Open a modal when a new, unreviewed user clicks into a comment box to write a comment for the first time.  Note how it's three sentences long, explicitly tells users that they start out rate limited, and also links to the new user's guide.

  

• Show new, unreviewed users this moderation warning directly underneath the comment box.

  

Now, it's true that people mostly don't read things.  So there is a tricky balance to strike between providing "sufficient" warning, and not driving people away because you keep throwing annoying roadblocks/warnings at them^[1].  But it is simply not the case that LessWrong does not go out of its way to tell new users that the site has specific (and fairly high) standards.

1. ^{^}

   On the old internet, you didn't get advance notice that you should internalize the norms of the community you were trying to join.  You just got told to lurk more - or banned without warning, if you were unlucky.