“An Opinionated Guide to Privacy Despite Authoritarianism” by TurnTrout

I've created a highly specific and actionable privacy guide, sorted by importance and venturing several layers deep into the privacy iceberg. I start with the basics (password manager) but also cover the obscure (dodging the millions of Bluetooth tracking beacons which extend from stores to traffic lights; anti-stingray settings; flashing GrapheneOS on a Pixel). I feel strongly motivated by current events, but the guide also contains a large amount of timeless technical content. Here's a preview. Digital Threat Modeling Under Authoritarianism by Bruce Schneier Being innocent won't protect you. This is vital to understand. Surveillance systems and sorting algorithms make mistakes. This is apparent in the fact that we are routinely served advertisements for products that don’t interest us at all. Those mistakes are relatively harmless—who cares about a poorly targeted ad?—but a similar mistake at an immigration hearing can get someone deported. An authoritarian government doesn't care. Mistakes are a feature and not a bug of authoritarian surveillance. If ICE targets only people it can go after legally, then everyone knows whether or not they need to fear ICE. If ICE occasionally makes mistakes by arresting Americans and deporting innocents, then everyone has to [...] ---Outline:(01:55) What should I read?(02:53) Whats your risk level?(03:46) What information this guide will and wont help you protect(05:00) Overview of the technical recommendations in each post(05:05) Privacy Despite Authoritarianism(06:08) Advanced Privacy Despite Authoritarianism --- First published: October 29th, 2025 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/BPyieRshykmrdY36A/an-opinionated-guide-to-privacy-despite-authoritarianism --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO. ---Images from the article:Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.

There is a very famous essay titled ‘Reality has a surprising amount of detail’. The thesis of the article is that reality is filled, just filled, with an incomprehensible amount of materially important information, far more than most people would naively expect. Some of this detail is inherent in the physical structure of the universe, and the rest of it has been generated by centuries of passionate humans imbibing the subject with idiosyncratic convention. In either case, the detail is very, very important. A wooden table is “just” a flat slab of wood on legs until you try building one at industrial scales, and then you realize that a flat slab of wood on legs is but one consideration amongst grain, joint stability, humidity effects, varnishes, fastener types, ergonomics, and design aesthetics. And this is the case for literally everything in the universe. Including cancer. But up until just [...] --- First published: October 26th, 2025 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/w7eojyXfXiZaBSGej/cancer-has-a-surprising-amount-of-detail --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO. ---Images from the article:Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.

There's a strong argument that humans should stop trying to build more capable AI systems, or at least slow down progress. The risks are plausibly large but unclear, and we’d prefer not to die. But the roadmaps of the companies pursuing these systems envision increasingly agentic AI systems taking over the key tasks of researching and building superhuman AI systems, and humans will therefore have a decreasing ability to make many key decisions. In the near term, humanity could stop, but seem likely to fail. That said, even though humans have relatively little ability to coordinate around such unilateralist dilemmas, AI systems may have different abilities or incentives. Not only that, but it seems at least plausible that the systems used to continue work on ASI development will need a higher degree of self-directedness and internal goal-directed behavior. The below, arguing that they should refrain from developing more advanced [...] ---Outline:(01:10) Cui bono?(02:39) Should the AI Systems Care?(04:29) Who might be convinced? --- First published: October 27th, 2025 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/CFA8W6WCodEZdjqYE/ais-should-also-refuse-to-work-on-capabilities-research --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

(23K words; best considered as nonfiction with a fictional-dialogue frame, not a proper short story.) Prologue: Klurl and Trapaucius were members of the machine race. And no ordinary citizens they, but Constructors: licensed, bonded, and insured; proven, experienced, and reputed. Together Klurl and Trapaucius had collaborated on such famed artifices as the Eternal Clock, Silicon Sphere, Wandering Flame, and Diamond Book; and as individuals, both had constructed wonders too numerous to number. At one point in time Trapaucius was meeting with Klurl to drink a cup together. Klurl had set before himself a simple mug of mercury, considered by his kind a standard social lubricant. Trapaucius had brought forth in turn a far more exotic and experimental brew he had been perfecting, a new intoxicant he named gallinstan, alloyed from gallium, indium, and tin. "I have always been curious, friend Klurl," Trapaucius began, "about the ancient mythology which holds [...] ---Outline:(00:20) Prologue:(05:16) On Fleshling Capabilities (the First Debate between Klurl and Trapaucius):(26:05) On Fleshling Motivations (the 2nd (and by Far Longest) Debate between Klurl and Trapaucius):(36:32) On the Epistemology of Simplicitys Razor Applied to Fleshlings (the 2nd Part of their 2nd Debate, that is, its 2.2nd Part):(51:36) On the Epistemology of Reasoning About Alien Optimizers and their Outputs (their 2.3rd Debate):(01:08:46) On Considering the Outcome of a Succession of Filters (their 2.4th Debate):(01:16:50) On the Purported Beneficial Influence of Complications (their 2.5th Debate):(01:25:58) On the Comfortableness of All Reality (their 2.6th Debate):(01:32:53) On the Way of Proceeding with the Discovered Fleshlings (their 3rd Debate):(01:52:22) In which Klurl and Trapaucius Interrogate a Fleshling (that Being the 4th Part of their Sally):(02:16:12) On the Storys End:--- First published: October 26th, 2025 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/dHLdf8SB8oW5L27gg/on-fleshling-safety-a-debate-by-klurl-and-trapaucius --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

If you want to understand a country, you should pick a similar country that you are already familiar with, research the differences between the two and there you go, you are now an expert. But this approach doesn’t quite work for the European Union. You might start, for instance, by comparing it to the United States, assuming that EU member countries are roughly equivalent to U.S. states. But that analogy quickly breaks down. The deeper you dig, the more confused you become. You try with other federal states. Germany. Switzerland. But it doesn’t work either. Finally, you try with the United Nations. After all, the EU is an international organization, just like the UN. But again, the analogy does not work. The facts about the EU just don’t fit into your UN-shaped mental model. Not getting anywhere, you decide to bite the bullet and learn about the EU the [...] --- First published: October 21st, 2025 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/88CaT5RPZLqrCmFLL/eu-explained-in-10-minutes --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO. ---Images from the article:Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.

I recently visited my girlfriend's parents in India. Here is what that experience taught me: Yudkowsky has this facebook post where he makes some inferences about the economy after noticing two taxis stayed in the same place while he got his groceries. I had a few similar experiences while I was in India, though sadly I don't remember them in enough detail to illustrate them in as much detail as that post. Most of the thoughts relating to economics revolved around how labour in India is extremely cheap. I knew in the abstract that India is not as rich as countries I had been in before, but it was very different seeing that in person. From the perspective of getting an intuitive feel for economics, it was very interesting to be thrown into a very different economy and seeing a lot of surprising facts and noticing how [...] --- First published: October 16th, 2025 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/2xWC6FkQoRqTf9ZFL/cheap-labour-everywhere --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

This is a link post. Written in my personal capacity. Thanks to many people for conversations and comments. Written in less than 24 hours; sorry for any sloppiness. It's an uncanny, weird coincidence that the two biggest legislative champions for AI safety in the entire country announced their bids for Congress just two days apart. But here we are. On Monday, I put out a long blog post making the case for donating to Alex Bores, author of the New York RAISE Act. And today I’m doing the exact same thing for Scott Wiener, who announced a run for Congress in California today (October 22). Much like with Alex Bores, if you’re potentially interested in donating to Wiener, my suggestion would be to: Read this post to understand the case for donating to Scott Wiener. Understand that political donations are a matter of public record, and that this [...] --- First published: October 22nd, 2025 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/n6Rsb2jDpYSfzsbns/consider-donating-to-ai-safety-champion-scott-wiener Linkpost URL:https://ericneyman.wordpress.com/2025/10/22/consider-donating-to-ai-safety-champion-scott-wiener/ --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

In recent years, I’ve found that people who self-identify as members of the AI safety community have increasingly split into two camps: Camp A) "Race to superintelligence safely”: People in this group typically argue that "superintelligence is inevitable because of X”, and it's therefore better that their in-group (their company or country) build it first. X is typically some combination of “Capitalism”, “Molloch”, “lack of regulation” and “China”. Camp B) “Don’t race to superintelligence”: People in this group typically argue that “racing to superintelligence is bad because of Y”. Here Y is typically some combination of “uncontrollable”, “1984”, “disempowerment” and “extinction”. Whereas the 2023 extinction statement was widely signed by both Camp B and Camp A (including Dario Amodei, Demis Hassabis and Sam Altman), the 2025 superintelligence statement conveniently separates the two groups – for example, I personally offered all US Frontier AI CEO's to sign, and none chose [...] --- First published: October 22nd, 2025 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/zmtqmwetKH4nrxXcE/which-side-of-the-ai-safety-community-are-you-in --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO. ---Images from the article:Apple Podcasts and Spotify do not show images in the episode description. Try Pocket Casts, or another podcast app.

There's an argument I sometimes hear against existential risks, or any other putative change that some are worried about, that goes something like this: 'We've seen time after time that some people will be afraid of any change. They'll say things like "TV will destroy people's ability to read", "coffee shops will destroy the social order","machines will put textile workers out of work". Heck, Socrates argued that books would harm people's ability to memorize things. So many prophets of doom, and yet the world has not only survived, it has thrived. Innovation is a boon. So we should be extremely wary when someone cries out "halt" in response to a new technology, as that path is lined with skulls of would be doomsayers." Lest you think this is a straw man, Yann Le Cun compared fears about AI doom to fears about coffee. Now, I don't want to criticize [...] --- First published: October 22nd, 2025 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/cAmBfjQDj6eaic95M/doomers-were-right --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

People don't explore enough. They rely on cached thoughts and actions to get through their day. Unfortunately, this doesn't lead to them making progress on their problems. The solution is simple. Just do one new thing a day to solve one of your problems. Intellectually, I've always known that annoying, persistent problems often require just 5 seconds of actual thought. But seeing a number of annoying problems that made my life worse, some even major ones, just yield to the repeated application of a brief burst of thought each day still surprised me. For example, I had a wobbly chair. It was wobbling more as time went on, and I worried it would break. Eventually, I decided to try actually solving the issue. 1 minute and 10 turns of an allen key later, it was fixed. Another example: I have a shot attention span. I kept [...] --- First published: October 3rd, 2025 Source: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/gtk2KqEtedMi7ehxN/do-one-new-thing-a-day-to-solve-your-problems --- Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.