I would call them "attempted empiricists": They try to be empirical but do a poor job because they've tried to reinvent everything from the ground up from pop-sci blog posts.

Also telling that the chief prophet of race science crap (steve sailer) was just some guy with a finance and marketing degree. Or Charles murray, a political scientist who failed to explain what heritability is. Or the various intelligence researchers who committed fraud or terrible research.

I wouldn't pay for it, but:

1. if you specifically ask for links, it's often more useful than (enshittified) google for searching for things

2. For small programming tasks, it's sometimes more convenient than yoinking stuff from stackexchange

3. can do tech support slightly better than google

This isn't true, the "ai as normal technology" folks are the first example that comes to mind. The problem is that the two extremes of utopia or armeggedon make for more compelling stories.

This survey is way too generous to the Rationalist movement, you should be asking questions like "Should you quantify your beliefs even if you're just making the numbers up", and "should blog posts be on the same footing as peer reviewed scientific articles"

If either end of the confidence interval is dangerous, then it doesn't really matter if the confidence is wide: the conclusion is still that the concentration is dangerous, the uncertainty is only over how much.

This is important information to know, and motivates future, more precise studies

It can generate text consisting of code, and the chatgpt developers can set up a system to actually run the code that it outputs. That code can theoretically set up an excel file and output it for download, if the developers set that up. In practice, it's often easier for it to make stuff up.

When you plop down in the airplane seat, the airport process is finally done. You don't have to do anything or go anywhere for hours, you can finally relax. I'd rather get to this state sooner than later.

Your "scientific papers" are 3 pages long and contain no equations. What is there to check?

These "full physics papers" are 3 and 2 pages long respectively. There's no equations to actually check in there. This is gibberish.

The reason people associate the basilisk with lesswrong is because that's where it was posted, and that's where people took it seriously enough to freak out about it. A dude publicising this doesn't take away from the fact that the flawed epistemology of rationalism lead them to nonsensical results.

Non-yanks are horrified that your service workers have to beg for scraps from every single customer.

There is a mistake in the very first sentence of your report. It claims DOGE was established in executive order 14512, but EO numbers are not that high yet (the actual EO was 14158). If errors like this are common, then you are overestimating the AI capabilities here.

Please tell me you checked if the Q's and A's were actually correct

PhD Timeline xkcd.com/3081

"Freedom of Speech" painting by Norman Rockwell

I don't think any multiple-choice exams accused white people of causing earthquakes.

He covers this in the second video: it's a fun theory but it just doesn't line up with the evidence: there's no way someone wouldn't have seen the accident.

They want to replace every job in the world with garbage enshittified AI.

They are a splinter group of the Rationalists, which are fairly friendly with Yarvins neoreactionaries but I wouldn't describe them as having the same beliefs. They are more intellectual cousins, united by a belief that academia should be replaced by blog posts.

Kinda crazy that a machine which works entirely by multiplying massive matrices of numbers together still hasn't been able to learn the rules for multiplying large numbers together

The global health and animal rights people are still operating and getting a decent chunk of the EA money: in exchange they get trotted out as a shield for the other useless half of EA and the scandalous incompetence of the EA "leadership"

Yudkowsky is like the platonic ideal of the Feynman bro stereotype. All he does is waltz into a field he's read one textbook in, declare himself smarter than all the experts, then waltz out.