One of the dangers I see with LLMs is that we build such a persuasive collective consensus-mind that most people become excessively passive and trusting. That’s bad. But. Can I say something? living in a low-trust country ruled by utter crackpots … it might not be *all* bad?
Aug 1, 2026 at 3:28 PM
Moderating With Humans, For Humans - Trust Issues
Moderating With Humans, For Humans - Trust Issues
There's Something Fundamentally Wrong With LLMs
LLMs aren't trained on the "vast majority of speech," experts warn, a major blind spot that could have sweeping consequences.
The LLM Critics Are Right. I Use LLMs Anyway.
I almost agree with all of the LLM critics, yet I still use LLMs a lot. I know this sounds like I am delusional, but I don't think I am alone with it.
The LLM Critics Are Right. I Use LLMs Anyway.
I almost agree with all of the LLM critics, yet I still use LLMs a lot. I know this sounds like I am delusional, but I don't think I am alone with it.
Against False Indulgences in LLM Alignment
Unnecessary moral concern, and the false indulgences that drive it.
Well-intentioned obscenity
An LLM lied about me at the office and I'm cranky about it. That interaction makes me think a lot about how LLMs are becoming normalized, though, and what we're looking at in terms of their role in human-to-human interactions in the future.
LLMs believe false statements even after explicit warnings that they're false
Fine-tuning tests show "bias... toward confidently representing the claims as true."
Harnessing Collective Intelligence better than LLMs w/ Sean Geobey
Cognitive exponents and LLM leverage
I know a few people for whom LLMs have been a near-immediate multiplier of attention and effort. I know a lot for whom LLMs clearly make them worse at thinking and doing things. So: why?
Ignoring the Unreasonable
Illiberal and antidemocratic political forces, for example, in the form of far-right populism, are on the rise. Such politics, commonly referred to as ‘unreasonable’ in political philosophy, is widely seen as a threat to democracy. Many argue that an adequate response must involve listening to , that is, understanding and seriously considering the perspective of the unreasonable. I disagree. I argue that as democratic citizens, we should not listen to the unreasonable; we should, in a sense, ignore them, that is, refuse to understand and seriously consider their perspective, although continue to monitor their activities. Listening to the unreasonable is not instrumentally required for countering unreasonable politics. In addition, the unreasonable likely have no moral claim to be listened to. Finally, listening to them is disrespectful to reasonable citizens whose voice is ignored for the sake of paying attention to the unreasonable. For these reasons, we should ignore the unreasonable.
Illusions of Understanding from Outsourcing Thinking to LLMs
Some illusions of understanding are an inevitable part of the research process, while others can be avoided or overcome by careful critical thinking and observation. We are facing an increased risk of avoidable illusions as more research activities are delegated to large language models (LMM). LLMs can be useful but they cannot think, and their use can undermine our thinking and understanding. Thinking for ourselves is hard and error prone but worthwhile - and there are no shortcuts to understanding.
Dissent
If something has a lot of very bad externalities, and just the ones we know about are visibly, obviously causing major damage to important physical, social and informational ecosystems around us, then “lots of people want it” just isn’t a compelling argument.
The scientific case for being nice to your chatbot
New research confirms that LLMs often perform better when you encourage them. But why?
