> For what it's worth, this article is meant mainly for people who have never interacted with LessWrong before (as evidenced by its coda), who are getting their

> For what it's worth, this article is meant mainly for people who have never interacted with LessWrong before (as evidenced by its coda), who are getting their LessWrong post rejected. > Pre-existing LWers tend to have different failure states if they're caused by LLMs. I understand how it was framed, the claim that they're getting 10-20 users per day claiming LLM-assisted breakthroughs is obviously not true. Click through to the moderation log at https://www.lesswrong.com/moderation#rejected-posts https://www.lesswrong.com/moderation#rejected-posts and they're barely getting 10-20 rejected posts and comments total per day. They're mostly a mix of spam, off-topic, AI-assisted slop, but it's not a deluge of people claiming to have awoken ChatGPT. I can find the posts they're talking about if I search through enough entries. One such example: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/LjceJrADBzWc74dNE/the-recognition-thesis-what-if-agi-isn-t-about-capability https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/LjceJrADBzWc74dNE/the-recogn... But even that isn't hitting the bullet points of the list in the main post. I think that checklist and the claim that this is a common problem are a just a common tactic on LessWrong to make the problem seem more widespread and/or better understood by the author.