Writing For The AIs

Scott's muddled-and-creeped-out reflection on 'writing for AI' (Cowen/Gwern) in three senses: helping AIs learn what you know (time-limited - soon they won't need you); shaping their beliefs (alignment dominates training data; or your essay drowns in the ocean of text - what motivation-theory gives a sweet spot?); and being modeled/recreated (the uncanny-valley style imitation, the 'ape in a transhuman zoo,' the resurrection question). Lands on the sharp substructure/superstructure liberal puzzle: which of your values is it legitimate to bake into an AI that polls humans?

Quality 66 · Strong. A thoughtful reflection raising genuine puzzles about a live topic - the substructure/superstructure liberal puzzle (which values can a good liberal legitimately impose on future AI?) is sharp, and the creeped-out honesty is engaging. Strong, brief (1.2k) and deliberately unresolved (Scott himself is 'muddled').

Claude’s paradigm shift 50 · Moderate. Moderate - the substructure/superstructure framing + the 'what motivation-theory gives a writing-for-AI sweet spot' puzzle are fresh.

Real-world impact 2 · Minor. 2 - discourse essay; no material reach.