I think rationalists should consider taking more showers.

As Eliezer Yudkowsky once said, boredom makes us human. The childhoods of exceptional people often include excessive boredom as a trait that helped cultivate their genius:

A common theme in the biographies is that the area of study which would eventually give them fame came to them almost like a wild hallucination induced by overdosing on boredom. They would be overcome by an obsession arising from within.

Unfortunately, most people don't like boredom, and we now have little metal boxes and big metal boxes filled with bright displays that help distract us all the time, but there is still an effective way to induce boredom in a modern population: showering.

When you shower (or bathe, that also works), you usually are cut off...

In the recent paper titled Emergent Misalignment: Narrow finetuning can produce broadly misaligned LLMS, AIs are finetuned to produce vulnerable code. This results in broad misaligned behavior in contexts that are not related to code—a phenomenon the authors refer to as emergent misalignment.

The dataset used for finetuning consists of user requests for help with coding, and answers by an assistant that contain security vulnerabilities. When an LLM is trained to behave like the assistant in the training data it becomes broadly misaligned.

They examine whether this phenomenon is dependent on the perceived intent behind the code generation. Since the assistant in the training data introduces security vulnerabilities despite not being asked to do so by the user, and doesn’t indicate the vulnerabilities, it is...

Epistemic status: This should be considered an interim research note. Feedback is appreciated. 

Introduction

We increasingly expect language models to be ‘omni-modal’, i.e. capable of flexibly switching between images, text, and other modalities in their inputs and outputs. In order to get a holistic picture of LLM behaviour, black-box LLM psychology should take into account these other modalities as well. 

In this project, we do some initial exploration of image generation as a modality for frontier model evaluations, using GPT-4o’s image generation API. GPT-4o is one of the first LLMs to produce images natively rather than creating a text prompt which is sent to a separate image model, outputting images and autoregressive token sequences (ie in the same way as text).

We find that GPT-4o tends to respond in a consistent manner...

Intro

[you can skip this section if you don’t need context and just want to know how I could believe such a crazy thing]

In my chat community: “Open Play” dropped, a book that says there’s no physical difference between men and women so there shouldn’t be separate sports leagues. Boston Globe says their argument is compelling. Discourse happens, which is mostly a bunch of people saying “lololololol great trolling, what idiot believes such obvious nonsense?”

I urge my friends to be compassionate to those sharing this. Because “until I was 38 I thought Men's World Cup team vs Women's World Cup team would be a fair match and couldn't figure out why they didn't just play each other to resolve the big pay dispute.” This is the one-line summary...

A key step in the classic argument for AI doom is instrumental convergence: the idea that agents with many different goals will end up pursuing the same few subgoals, which includes things like "gain as much power as possible".

If it wasn't for instrumental convergence, you might think that only AIs with very specific goals would try to take over the world. But instrumental convergence says it's the other way around: only AIs with very specific goals will refrain from taking over the world.

For pure consequentialists—agents that have an outcome they want to bring about, and do whatever they think will cause it—some version of instrumental convergence seems surely true^[1].

But what if we get AIs that aren't pure consequentialists, for example because they're ultimately motivated by virtues? Do...

(Edit: Alas, EA has pulled out of the deal. Let April 1st 2025 mark some of the greatest hours in EAs history)

Hey Everyone,

It is with a sense of... considerable cognitive dissonance that I am letting you all know about a significant development for the future trajectory of LessWrong. After extensive internal deliberation, projections of financial runways, and what I can only describe as a series of profoundly unexpected coordination challenges, the Lightcone Infrastructure team has agreed in principle to the acquisition of LessWrong by EA.

I assure you, nothing about how LessWrong operates on a day to day level will change. I have always cared deeply about the robustness and integrity of our institutions, and I am fully aligned with our stakeholders at EA. 

To be honest, the key...

(Audio version here (read by the author), or search for "Joe Carlsmith Audio" on your podcast app. 

This is the fourth essay in a series that I’m calling “How do we solve the alignment problem?”. I’m hoping that the individual essays can be read fairly well on their own, but see this introduction for a summary of the essays that have been released thus far, and for a bit more about the series as a whole.)

1. Introduction and summary

In my last essay, I offered a high-level framework for thinking about the path from here to safe superintelligence. This framework emphasized the role of three key “security factors” – namely:

• Safety progress: our ability to develop new levels of AI capability safely,
• Risk evaluation: our ability to track and forecast the level