Per request, I just added "LLM Frequency" and "LLM Use case" to the survey, under LessWrong Team Questions. I'll probably tweak the options and might move it to Bonus Questions later when I can sit down and take some time to think. Suggestions on the wording are welcome!

On it!

I just added "LLM Frequency" and "LLM Use case" to the survey, under LessWrong Team Questions. I'll probably tweak the options and might move it to Bonus Questions later. Suggestions welcome!

So, I think Fight 1 is funny, but it is kind of high context, involving reading two somewhat long stories. (Planecrash in particular is past a million words long!) I'd considered "Who would win in a fight, Eliezer Yudkowsky or Scott Alexander? ["Eliezer", "Scott", "Wait, what's this? It's Aella with a steel chair!"]" and "Who is the rightful caliph? ["Eliezer Yudkowsky","Scott Alexander", "Wait, what's this? It's Robin Hanson with a steel chair!"]" but feel a bit weird about including real people. 

I think they're just as funny though, and far more people will understand it, so maybe I should switch. Anyone have convincing thoughts here?

I have no opinion on the difference and chatgpt agrees with you, so sure, changed to "eighty percent of the benefit."

Thanks for the year catch.

I could check their expected price of bitcoin, but that feels like more weight than I want to put on bitcoin- it's already a little bit overlapping with the S&P question. What I'd like to replace it with is something that 1. will have a definitive answer by next summer, 2. people have enough context to understand the question, and 3. isn't at obvious. 

The questions are not checking for social skills. I am not sure how I'd do that on an online survey that's going to be self reported, and if you have thoughts about that I'm kind of curious? What percentage of the survey being about social skills would be sufficient? (I'm heavily into meetups and in-person gatherings for LessWrong events, so I might be one of the more receptive audiences for this line of argument!)

I could, but what if someone genuinely thinks it's that high number? Someone put 1,000,000 on the 2022 version of that question. 

Expanding a little:

I think something like speaking the truth even when you're afraid to is a skill. I've noticed apprehension holds me back sometimes, both consciously and in a sneaky quiet voice in the back of my head asking if I'm sure, why not check again, surely this isn't the fight I want to pick. When I imagine an idealized rationalist, they don't keep quiet because of nagging anxiety about what might happen and that feels important.

I don't know if it's like, one of the top ten core rationalist skills I want to ask about, and I'm not at all sure this is the right phrasing. 

Many worlds and the Simulation question are probably not going to change our anticipated experiences. I do think we can put probabilities on things we don't expect to change our experiences- for instance, if you flip a coin, look at it, and commit to never telling me whether it came up heads, I still think the coin has a 50% chance of coming up heads. That's less ontologically weird though. 

Those two are longstanding census standard questions, and I'm probably going to keep them because I like being able to do comparisons over time. Many Worlds in particular is interesting to me as an artifact of the Sequences.

Hrm.

So, if I want that information I think I could get close by looking at everyone who answered the question before and the question after, but didn't answer Singularity.

I'll change the text to say they should enter something not a number, like "N/A" and then filter out anything that isn't a number when I'm doing math to it.

Yeah, the skills section is very much a draft that I'm hoping people will have good ideas for.

I've changed the wording to "speaking the truth even against social pressure" but I don't think this is good, just a little better.