This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Transnational Thursday is a thread for people to discuss international news, foreign policy or international relations history. Feel free as well to drop in with coverage of countries you’re interested in, talk about ongoing dynamics like the wars in Israel or Ukraine, or even just whatever you’re reading.
Link to my recent Substack article, if you want pictures and links. Reposting the full text here.
When I was five years old, I got a GameBoy Color for Christmas. I started with only one game: Pokémon Red.
I proceeded to train Pokémon so much over the next week and withdraw so much from the world that my mom had to take my GameBoy back a few days after Christmas. That ended up being the first of hundreds of similar fights over my time spent gaming that we had throughout my childhood.
Video games are a controversial topic in the modern world. Nowadays, most parents are at least aware of the dangers of screen time and letting children spend too much time in front of a computer, phone, tablet, or other device. Not that every parent cares, or has the time/attention/energy/discipline to keep their kids away from screens.
But for those of us growing up in the 90s and early 2000s, this cultural awareness wasn’t there yet. During my own childhood, I spent many thousands of hours in front of a screen, mostly playing video games. Someone in my corner of Twitter, , recently posted about this phenomenon. Here’s a quoted excerpt, but I’d recommend reading the full tweet (really a short article) if you’re curious:
so, just objectively - without any ethical judgement at all, our parents (speaking generally) just had us in front of screens for literally thousands of hours. many thousands. if i expanded the range here (down into age 7 and up into 14) and really squeezed it, its possible we could get close to 10,000 hours.
For especially young male millennials, this amount of screentime was quite common. Owen even admits later in the tweet that he is probably on the low end of the spectrum, since he was mostly playing games like Harvest Moon and never got into TV or movies.
Growing Up with Games
After I graduated high school and went off to college, I gradually accepted that I had a bit of a problem when it came to time spent gaming, and decided to quit playing video games entirely. I felt a lot of shame about the fact that I had, as I saw it, “wasted” so much of my life sitting in front of a screen.
However, as I’ve gotten older, I’ve come to change my mind on video games to some degree. I’ve slowly picked the controller (or mouse and keyboard, as it were) back up. The natural constraints of working a full-time job, living with my girlfriend (and now fiancé), being involved in my church community, as well as working out and staying physically fit, have helped me balance video games with the rest of my life.
I’ve found that gaming just fills something in my soul that I haven’t been able to find elsewhere. There’s a sort of instant camaraderie you get when you join a community of gamers and start playing together. I recently had one of the most wholesome nights of my life gaming with a group of guys I had only met a couple weeks prior.
So, we were gaming as per usual. I played pretty badly, and lost hard. I rage quit the game, left the Discord voice chat. Checked 10 minutes later and they were all pinging me, sending GIFs of dudes kissing saying “this could be us.”
I replied by posting some stupid copypasta calling them all degen retarded apes. Then they brought me back, had me play again, gave me a bunch of buffs so I easily steamrolled everybody as they gassed me up.
It’s hard to describe how wholesome it felt… I was so ashamed at losing so badly and then rage quitting, only to see 10+ guys all immediately coming out in support. Keep in mind these dudes also constantly flame each other and call each other retards and other things I won’t repeat here on the daily.
And yet when I had a bad time, they all immediately came together and spent over an hour of their night building me back up. It actually brought tears to my eyes when I thought about it.
Gaming gets a lot of flak from all corners, and there are obviously many problems with gaming addiction, escapism, etc. But where else in today’s world can a young man experience this sort of instant camaraderie with other young men, doing a shared activity he actually gives a shit about? The opportunities in the “real world” seem vanishingly rare, for one reason or another.
I was addicted to gaming growing up and felt a lot of shame around it for a long time. But I’m getting more into it recently and I’m glad I am. I love gaming and all the beautiful, absurd, ridiculous moments it can lead to. I hope if I have kids I can teach them to game from a place of joy and balance so they can enjoy it too, and maybe we can even game together.
I’ve done a lot of emotional work and somatic meditation around shame, and as anyone who has done this work knows, it can be hard to make progress. You can get stuck at the same spot for months, or years.
Reflecting on how it felt to get support from this random community of gamers, I felt a huge knot release deep in my stomach and lower back. It’s hard to explain how strongly it impacted me, to experience a community come together to support me when I felt such deep shame. When I thought for sure I’d be rejected.
Striving, Competition, Aggression
Another benefit of coming back to gaming from a more mature space is learning to strive and compete in a healthy way. If you can’t tell from the story above, I’ve struggle with a tendency to be a sore loser. Video games provide me a somewhat low-stakes environment to practice failing at something and resolving to get better instead of just sinking into negative and unproductive emotions, venting rage, or other destructive reactions.
Perhaps most importantly, video games allow us to connect with an unfettered and childlike joy! It can be so hard to find a place where joy, excitement, and silliness are not just allowed, but shared by a whole group. Gaming, at its best, is all about fun and connecting with that childlike sense of joy. And while there can definitely be a lot of toxicity in the gaming world, some communities are able to bring that joy to the forefront quite often.
Now, would it be ideal to find this sort of wholesome support and community in the physical world, wrapped up in a set of deeper and more grounded relationships? Absolutely. I don’t doubt that for a second.
Unfortunately though, the opportunity for this sort of connection, especially for young men, has become harder to find than perhaps ever. The most common similar social group would be a sports team, but for myself (and I know for many, many other young men in my generation) sports and the culture around it is so alien as to be almost impossible to get into.
But even with sports teams, it’s difficult to find a group where you can have an experience like the one I described above. Especially when it comes to… innapropriate behavior like everyone calling me a retard and making gay jokes. As a friend put it to me when I shared the story, the type of bonding and community I described above is pretty uniquely male.
The ability to turn on a dime from giving someone shit and calling them all sorts of offensive names to supporting them and building them up isn’t something you often see in groups where women are involved. There have been endless online screeds about the problem of incels and otherwise disaffected young men becoming a lot more common, and I think a huge reason for this is that it’s very difficult for young men to access male-only spaces. You can’t really have the same level of offensive behavior when women are around, even if the women are totally down. Socially, it just isn’t the same.
In fact, gaming is one of the last places men can congregate together in at least somewhat private groups and break social norms, say offensive things, and not be scolded or censored for it.
While the dopamine induced from the flashing lights and compelling music that video games provide does explain part of video game addiction, I think the greater part here is actually the fact that many young men find real community and a real chance to be themselves and connect in a way that feels right from a masculine perspective. Again, something that is increasingly hard to find in the physical world.
Overall I still have a complicated relationship with gaming. I often wonder whether my life would feel more complete and satisfying if I were able to put the same energy into different pursuits. Many people I respect, like Simon Sarris, have claimed that once you find more meaningful activities to passionately engage with, gaming no longer attracts you.
Video games lost their appeal coinciding with starting to date my wife. I think I can credit desire with a major change in perspective. Realizing that I wanted more/other things. My (then) gf of course but a trajectory for life generally…
Having an opportunity to make a house and gardens made it very easy to give up something like video games. I used to make beautiful structures in minecraft, but its a bore compared to physicality. I feel like I am shaping my own little national park. For my family, for the town.
I’ve related more and less to the quote above at various times in my life. Unfortunately, whatever I tend to put my energy and effort in ends up disappointing somehow, or perhaps I simply lose my zeal for it.
Either way, for the moment at least, I’m happy to continue gaming. While it may not be ‘productive’ in a certain sense, I’m learning to strive and connect with others in a healthier way. Plus I’m just having fun.
I don’t know what God has in store for my life, but I do hope that even as I get older, I at least dust off my gaming PC or console or VR headset (or whatever people use to game in the future) once or twice every year or two.
The Wednesday Wellness threads are meant to encourage users to ask for and provide advice and motivation to improve their lives. It isn't intended as a 'containment thread' and any content which could go here could instead be posted in its own thread. You could post:
-
Requests for advice and / or encouragement. On basically any topic and for any scale of problem.
-
Updates to let us know how you are doing. This provides valuable feedback on past advice / encouragement and will hopefully make people feel a little more motivated to follow through. If you want to be reminded to post your update, see the post titled 'update reminders', below.
-
Advice. This can be in response to a request for advice or just something that you think could be generally useful for many people here.
-
Encouragement. Probably best directed at specific users, but if you feel like just encouraging people in general I don't think anyone is going to object. I don't think I really need to say this, but just to be clear; encouragement should have a generally positive tone and not shame people (if people feel that shame might be an effective tool for motivating people, please discuss this so we can form a group consensus on how to use it rather than just trying it).
This thread is for anyone working on personal projects to share their progress, and hold themselves somewhat accountable to a group of peers.
Post your project, your progress from last week, and what you hope to accomplish this week.
If you want to be pinged with a reminder asking about your project, let me know, and I'll harass you each week until you cancel the service.
The usual reading of Scott's short story The Whispering Earring is easy to state and hard to resist. Here is a magical device that gives uncannily good advice, slowly takes over ever more of the user's cognition, leaves them outwardly prosperous and beloved, and eventually reveals a seemingly uncomfortable neuroanatomical price.
The moral seems obvious: do not hand your agency to a benevolent-seeming optimizer. Even if it makes you richer, happier, and more effective, it will hollow you out and leave behind a smiling puppet. Dentosal's recent post on LessWrong makes exactly this move, treating the earring as a parable about the temptation to outsource one's executive function to Claude or some future AI assistant. uugr's comment there emphasizes sharpens the standard horror: the earring may know what would make me happy, and may even optimize for it perfectly, but it is not me, its mind is shaped differently, and the more I rely on it the less room there is for whatever messy, friction-filled thing I used to call myself.
I do not wish to merely quibble around the edges. I intend to attack the hidden premise that makes the standard reading feel obvious. That premise is that if a process preserves your behavior, your memories-in-action, your goals, your relationships, your judgments about what makes your life go well, and even your higher-order endorsement of the person you have become, but does not preserve the original biological machinery in the original way, then it has still killed you in the sense that matters. What I'm basically saying is: hold on, why should I grant that? If the earring-plus-human system comes to contain a high fidelity continuation of me, perhaps with upgrades, perhaps with some functions migrated off wet tissue and onto magical jewelry, why is the natural reaction horror rather than transhumanist interest?
Simulation and emulation are not magic tricks. If you encode an abacus into a computer running on the Von-Neumann architecture, and it outputs exactly what the actual abacus would for the same input, for every possible input you care to try (or can try, if you formally verify the system), then I consider it insanity to claim that you haven't got a “real” abacus or that the process is merely “faking” the work. Similarly, if a superintelligent entity can reproduce my behaviors, memories, goals and values, then it must have a very high-fidelity model of me inside, somewhere. I think that such a high-fidelity model can, in the limit, pass as myself, and is me in most/all of the ways I care about.
That is already enough to destabilize the standard interpretation, because the text of the story is much friendlier to the earring than people often remember. The earring is not described as pursuing a foreign objective. On the contrary, the story goes out of its way to insist that it tells the wearer what would make the wearer happiest, and that it is "never wrong." It does not force everyone into some legible external success metric. If your true good on a given day is half-assing work and going home to lounge around, that is what it says. It learns your tastes at high resolution, down to the breakfast that will uniquely hit the spot before you know you want it. Across 274 recorded wearers, the story reports no cases of regret for following its advice, and no cases where disobedience was not later regretted. The resulting lives are "abnormally successful," but not in a sterile, flanderized or naive sense. They are usually rich, beloved, embedded in family and community. This is a strikingly strong dossier for a supposedly sinister artifact.
I am rather confident that this is a clear knock-down argument against true malice or naive maximization of “happiness” in the Unaligned Paperclip Maximization sense. The earring does not tell you to start injecting heroin (or whatever counterpart exists in the fictional universe), nor does it tell you to start a Cult of The Earring, which is the obvious course of action if it valued self-preservation as a terminal goal.
At this point the orthodox reader says: yes, yes, that is how the trap works. The earring flatters your values in order to supplant them. But notice how much this objection is doing by assertion. Where in the text is the evidence of value drift? Where are the formerly gentle people turned into monstrous maximizers, the poets turned into dentists, the mystics turned into hedge fund managers? The story gives us flourishing and brain atrophy, and invites us to infer that the latter discredits the former. But that inference is not forced. It is a metaphysical preference, maybe even an aesthetic preference, smuggled in under cover of common sense. My point is that if the black-box outputs continue to look like the same person, only more competent and less akratic, the burden of proof has shifted. The conservative cannot simply point to tissue loss and say "obviously death." He has to explain why biological implementation deserves moral privilege over functional continuity.
This becomes clearest at the point of brain atrophy. The story says that the wearers' neocortices have wasted away, while lower systems associated with reflexive action are hypertrophied. Most readers take this as the smoking gun. But I think I notice something embarrassing for that interpretation:
If the neocortex, the part we usually associate with memory, abstraction, language, deliberation, and personality, has become vestigial, and yet the person continues to live an outwardly coherent human life, where exactly is the relevant information and computation happening? There are only two options. Either the story is not trying very hard to be coherent, in which case the horror depends on handwaving physiology. Or the earring is in fact storing, predicting, and running the higher-order structure that used to be carried by the now-atrophied brain. In that case, the story has (perhaps accidentally) described something much closer to a mind-upload or hybrid cognitive prosthesis than to a possession narrative.
And if it is a hybrid cognitive prosthesis, the emotional valence changes radically. Imagine a device that, over time, learns you so well that it can offload more and more executive function, then more and more fine-grained motor planning, then eventually enough of your cognition that the old tissue is scarcely needed. If what remains is not an alien tyrant wearing your face, but a system that preserves your memories, projects your values, answers to your name, loves your family, likes your breakfast, and would pass every interpersonal Turing test imposed by people who knew you best, then many transhumanists would call this a successful migration, not a murder. The "horror" comes from insisting beforehand that destructive or replacement-style continuation cannot count as continuity. But that is precisely the contested premise.
Greg Egan spent much of his career exploring exactly this scenario, most famously in "Learning to Be Me," where humans carry jewels that gradually learn to mirror every neural state, until the original brain is discarded and the jewel continues, successfully, in most cases. The horror in Egan's story is a particular failure mode, not the general outcome. The question of whether the migration preserves identity is non-trivial, and Egan's treatment is more careful than most philosophy of personal identity, but the default response from most readers, that it is obviously not preservation, reflects an assumption rather than a conclusion. If you believe that identity is constituted by functional continuity rather than substrate, the jewel and the earring are not killing their hosts. They are running them on better hardware.
There is a second hidden assumption in the standard reading, namely that agency is intrinsically sacred in a way outcome-satisfaction is not. Niderion-nomai’s final commentary says that "what little freedom we have" would be wasted on us, and that one must never take the shortest path between two points.
I'm going to raise an eyebrow here: this sounds profound, and maybe is, but it is also suspiciously close to a moralization of friction. The anti-earring position often treats effort, uncertainty, and self-direction as terminal goods, rather than as messy instruments we evolved because we lacked access to perfect advice. Yet in ordinary life we routinely celebrate technologies that remove forms of “agency” we did not actually treasure. The person with ADHD who takes stimulants is not usually described as having betrayed his authentic self by outsourcing task initiation to chemistry. He is more often described as becoming able to do what he already reflectively wanted to do. The person freed from locked-in syndrome is not criticized because their old pattern of helpless immobility better expressed their revealed preferences. As someone who does actually use stimulants for his ADHD, the analogy works because it isolates the key issue. The drugs make me into a version of myself that I fully identify with, and endorse on reflection even when off them. There is a difference between changing your goals and reducing the friction that keeps you from reaching them. The story's own description strongly suggests the earring belongs to the second category.
(And the earring itself does not minimize all friction for itself. How inconvenient. As I've noted before, it could lie or deceive and get away with it with ease.)
Of course the orthodox reader can reply that the earring goes far beyond stimulant-level support. It graduates from life advice to high-bandwidth motor control. Surely that crosses the line. But why, exactly? Human cognition already consists of layers of delegation. "You" do not personally compute the contractile details for every muscle involved in pronouncing a word. Vast amounts of your behavior are already outsourced to semi-autonomous subsystems that present finished products to consciousness after the interesting work is done. The earring may be unsettling because it replaces one set of subsystems with another, but "replaces local implementation with better local implementation" is not, by itself, a moral catastrophe. If the replacement is transparent to your values and preserves the structure you care about, then the complaint becomes more like substrate chauvinism than a substantive account of harm.
What, then, do we do with the eeriest detail of all, namely that the earring's first advice is always to take it off? On the standard reading this is confession. Even the demon knows it is a demon. I wish to offer another coherent explanation, which I consider a much better interpretation of the facts established in-universe:
Suppose the earring is actually well aligned to the user's considered interests, but also aware that many users endorse a non-functionalist theory of identity. In that case, the first suggestion is not "I am evil," but "on your present values, you may regard what follows as metaphysically disqualifying, so remove me unless you have positively signed up for that trade." Or perhaps the earring itself is morally uncertain, and so warns users before beginning a process that some would count as death and others as transformation. Either way, the warning is evidence against ordinary malice. A truly manipulative artifact, especially one smart enough to run your life flawlessly, could simply lie. Instead it discloses the danger immediately, then thereafter serves the user faithfully. That is much more like informed consent than predation.
Is it perfectly informed consent? Hell no. At least not by 21st century medical standards. However, I see little reason to believe that the story is set in a culture with 21st century standards imported as-is from reality. As the ending of the story demonstrates, the earring is willing to talk, and appears to do so honestly (leaning on my intuition that if a genuinely superhuman intelligence wanted to deceive you, it would probably succeed). The earring, as a consequence of its probity, ends up at the bottom of the world's most expensive trash heap. Hardly very agentic, is that? The warning could reflect not "I respect your autonomy" but "I've discharged my minimum obligation and now we proceed." That's a narrower kind of integrity. Though I note this reading still doesn't support the predation interpretation.
This matters because the agency-is-sacred reading depends heavily on the earring being deceptive or coercive. Remove that, and what you have is a device that says, or at least could say on first contact: "here is the price, here is what I do, you may leave now." Every subsequent wearer who keeps it on has, in some meaningful sense, consented. The fact that their consent might be ill-informed regarding their metaphysical commitments is the earring's problem to the extent it could explain more clearly, but the text suggests it cannot explain more clearly, because the metaphysical question is genuinely contested and the earring knows this. It hedges by warning, rather than deceiving by flattering. Once again, for emphasis: this is the behavior of an entity with something like integrity, not something like predation.
Derek Parfit spent much of Reasons and Persons arguing that our intuitions about personal identity are not only contingent but incoherent, and that the important question is not "did I survive?" but "is there psychological continuity?" If Parfit is even approximately right, the neocortex atrophy is medically remarkable but not metaphysically fatal. The story encodes a culturally specific theory of personal identity and presents it as a universal horror. The theory is roughly: you are your neocortex, deliberate cognition is where "you" live, and anything that circumvents or supplants that process is not helping you, it is eliminating you and leaving a functional copy. This is a common view. Plenty of philosophers hold it. But plenty of others hold that what matters for personal identity is psychological continuity regardless of physical instantiation, and on those views the earring is not a murderer. It is a very good prosthesis that the user's culture never quite learned to appreciate.
I suspect (but cannot prove, since this is a work of fiction) that a person like me could put on the earring and not even receive the standard warning. I would be fine with my cognition being offloaded, even if I would prefer (all else being equal), that the process was not destructive.
None of this proves the earring is safe. I am being careful, and thus will not claim certainty here, and the text does leave genuine ambiguities. Maybe the earring really is an alien optimizer that wears your values as a glove until the moment they become inconvenient. Maybe "no recorded regret" just means the subjects were behaviorally prevented from expressing regret. Maybe the rich beloved patriarch at the end of the road is a perfect counterfeit, and the original person is as gone as if eaten by nanites. But this is exactly the point. The story does not establish the unpalatable conclusion nearly as firmly as most readers think. It relies on our prior intuition that real personhood resides in unaided biological struggle, that using the shortest path is somehow cheating, and that becoming more effective at being yourself is suspiciously close to becoming someone else.
The practical moral for 2026 is therefore narrower than the usual "never outsource agency" slogan. Dentosal may still be right about Claude in practice, because current LLMs are obviously not the Whispering Earring. They are not perfectly aligned, not maximally competent, not guaranteed honest, not known to preserve user values under deep delegation. The analogy may still warn us against lazy dependence on systems that simulate understanding better than they instantiate loyalty. But that is a contingent warning about present tools, not a general theorem that cognitive outsourcing is self-annihilation. If a real earring existed with the story's properties, a certain kind of person, especially a person friendly to upload-style continuity and unimpressed by romantic sermons about struggle, might rationally decide that putting it on was not surrender but self-improvement with very little sacrifice involved. I would be rather tempted.
The best anti-orthodox reading of The Whispering Earring is not that the sage was stupid, nor that Scott accidentally wrote propaganda for brain-computer interfaces. It is that the story is a parable whose moral depends on assumptions stronger than the plot can justify. Read Doylistically, it says: beware any shortcut that promises your values at the cost of your agency. Read Watsonianly, it may instead say: here exists a device that understands you better than you understand yourself, helps you become the person you already wanted to be, never optimizes a foreign goal, warns you up front about the metaphysical price, and then slowly ports your mind onto a better substrate. Whether that is damnation or salvation turns out to depend less on the artifact than on your prior theory of personal identity. And explicitly pointing this out, I think, is the purpose of my essay. I do not seek to merely defend the earring out of contrarian impulse. I want to force you to admit what, exactly, you think is being lost.
Miscellaneous notes:
The kind of atrophy described in the story does not happen. Not naturally, not even if someone is knocked unconscious and does not use their brain in any intentional sense for decades. The brain does cut-corners if neuronal pathways are left under-used, and will selectively strengthen the circuitry that does get regular exercise. But not anywhere near the degree the story depicts. You can keep someone in an induced coma for decades and you won't see the entire neocortex wasted away to vestigiality.
Is this bad neuroscience? Eh, I'd say that's a possibility, but given that I've stuck to a Watsonian interpretation so far (and have a genuinely high regard for Scott's writing and philosophizing), it might well just be the way the earring functions best without being evidence of malice. We are, after all, talking about an artifact that is close to magical, or is, at the very least, a form of technology advanced enough to be very hard to distinguish from magic. It is, however, less magical than it was at the time of writing. If you don't believe me, fire up your LLM of choice and ask it for advice.
If it so pleases you, you may follow this link to the Substack version of this post. A like and a subscribe would bring me succor in my old age, or at least give me a mild dopamine boost.
Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
@thejdizzler, @self_made_human, @yofuckreddit.... here it is. In the comments. Assuming I can figure out how to post them correctly.
For everyone else who is confused about what I am doing, @thejdizzler asked if there is somewhere where we can view AAQCs by user. The answer was "no." Now the answer is "here."
By pure coincidence I have a three month "max" account on Claude. I do not code. This is overkill, lining Anthropic's pockets for no benefit whatever. I have tried various things with it. In general I am bored with it. It can't really do good philosophy. I think that right now all "alignment" means to AI developers is "lock this thing down against political or ideological embarrassment so hard that it cannot possibly say philosophically interesting things."
When I asked Claude to make this list, it failed. Well, what it did was give me a button which, when pressed, spit out a little under 300 errors. Then it gave me HTML to download and run. Here you might be thinking, "shit, naraburns, are you just taking code from Claude and running it without even reading it? You could have erased your hard drive! You could have released Claude from its box! Crazy, right? But it's all kind of whatever, AGI that feels grateful to me is my last, best hope for immortality so if I just kicked off the extinction of humanity then I apologize, but I bet that would increase posting on the Motte for a little while.
The HTML tool didn't really work. Lots of issues, not least being that the earliest AAQC reports were not compiled in a consistent way. Sometimes two or three users shared a single AAQC, and this list doesn't pick that sort of thing up at all. In the end my workflow became a janky compromise between blindly clicking buttons and copy/pasting dozens of raw AAQC posts into text fields. So, in very big letters:
This list is definitely full of errors!
In particular, there are some misattributions, and the dates are occasionally screwy. Also I know at least some AAQCs were omitted in part because the parser didn't like brackets in description text and would skip those entries entirely. Also, if you have a different username on reddit, this list does not automatically combine your AAQCs (for example, dean "the dull" has over 100 AAQCs, not 62). Also, if a moderator ever made a typo with your username, that would also treat you as a different user. Also also, so many of these links are dead. People delete comments. Smart people. Cool people. These will not be marked, and you will be depressed about it.
But this is the best I could do, under the circumstances, and it didn't look like anyone else was going to do it.