LessWrong (Curated & Popular)

As AI systems become more capable, the cognitive security of humans will be increasingly at risk. By cognitive security, I mean the ability of humans to maintain control over their beliefs and actions.

Cognitive security could be compromised in several ways: AI could become very good at persuading people of arbitrary positions; interacting with AI could lead humans to lose touch with reality; and AIs could become very effective at blackmail or at producing extremely convincing false information.

We are already seeing this happen:

Persuasion. Frontier LLMs are now as persuasive as humans on political issues, and post-training for persuasiveness boosts performance further, suggesting there is headroom.
AI psychosis. There are many reports of people developing delusional beliefs after extended chatbot conversations, including people with no prior history of mental illness. Children have taken their own lives after being encouraged toward suicide by chatbots.
Convincing impersonation. Scammers used real-time deepfaked video to impersonate the CFO and other staff of Arup on a video call, convincing a finance employee to wire 25.6 million dollars across 15 transactions. On a more day-to-day basis, AI voice cloning is now widespread in family-emergency and "grandparent" scams.
Right now, many of these effects [...]

The original text contained 2 footnotes which were omitted from this narration.

---

First published:

May 25th, 2026


Source:

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/KGcE7eAdfxHchk25X/cognitive-security-as-an-ai-safety-cause-area

---



Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

[1] We will likely have near-superhuman mathematics AI by Q1 2027.
[1]

[2] Qualitatively, AI mathematics capabilities are developing significantly faster than automated AI R&D capabilities.
[2]

[3] Thus, we will likely have a period of time where the rate of our ability to rigorously & usefully verify and understand model behavior and model outputs outpaces the rate of capability development itself.

[4] Our ability to take advantage of this period is bottlenecked on the quality of our specification generation infrastructure, elicitation tooling (for proofs & specs etc.), and the institutional capacity for scaling useful outputs with capital.

[5] My understanding is that basically no one
[3]
is working on building infra that can usefully turn >100 million dollars of compute credits into safety-relevant mathematical output.

[5.1] The number of theory-driven ASI alignment efforts is also comparatively miniscule. ARC is a much better bet now than it was in 2023.

[5.2]. My understanding is also that no one is working on developing AI-powered conceptual tooling infrastructure for tackling problems in, for instance, [metaphilosophy] (https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/EByDsY9S3EDhhfFzC/some-thoughts-on-metaphilosophy). This is a much harder problem.

[6] In worlds where alignment is easy, prosaic methods may [...]

The original text contained 3 footnotes which were omitted from this narration.

---

First published:

May 20th, 2026


Source:

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/KWeAYcDJwfrG7RwBN/theory-uplift-differentially-benefits-safety-and-is

---



Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

m pretty annoyed today, for nominal reasons ranging between ‘petty’ and ‘doesn’t even make sense’. I’m not entirely sure how or if to take oneself seriously when one has such absurd grievances. But that's a question for another time—I’m here now to tell you about my one potentially valid peeve.

I understand that gender is complicated and difficult, for the whole species (and honestly probably more so for some other species). And it can be hard to tell exactly if anyone is behaving badly regarding it, at least in my modern bubble. Maybe women just aren’t that into designing programming languages? Maybe the thing I’m saying is just boring and a man is saying a more interesting thing?

But a thing that is undeniable is that women want to open jars, dammit! What's your nuanced explanation there, Bonne Maman? Does the proper amount of friction for maintaining spread safety fall just between the male and female human grip strength distributions?

This study suggests that would be about 400N Fmax (though this would not avert most elite female athletes acquiring jam, see second figure, and the pictured participants are young adults):

The distributions are really surprisingly [...]

---

First published:

May 21st, 2026


Source:

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/bB5EDwcYH3GwoRWZf/women-should-be-able-to-open-things

---



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.

Credit: ClaudePlaysPokemon Elevator Shanty by Kurukkoo

Disclaimer: like some previous posts in this series, this was not primarily written by me, but by a friend. I did substantial editing, however.

ClaudePlaysPokemon feat. Opus 4.7 has finally beaten Pokémon Red, fulfilling the challenge set over a year ago when LLMs playing Pokémon went briefly, slightly viral.

Victory Screen!

Let's get the throat-clearing out of the way: this doesn't make 4.7 a clear breakthrough in intelligence over 4.6 or 4.5. It's smarter, yes, as we'll discuss below, but not by something one could honestly call a big leap. Rather, step changes have finally accumulated to the point of victory.

And to give other models their fair shake: after criticism over its elaborate harness,[1] GeminiPlaysPokemon has beaten Pokémon with progressively weaker harnesses, including about two months ago with a harness comparable to the one Claude uses.[2]

As such, this is a bit of a valedictory post, closing off the cycle of Claude playing Pokémon Red, relating anecdotes for the fun of it, and discussing improvements in Opus 4.7, as well as speculating a bit on what this has all meant.

Retrospective Anecdotes on Claude 4.5 and 4.6

Our last post, on Opus [...]

---

Outline:

(01:37) Retrospective Anecdotes on Claude 4.5 and 4.6

[... 10 more sections]

---

First published:

May 16th, 2026


Source:

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/sehJYg5Yny9fvpbpt/a-year-late-claude-finally-beats-pokemon

---



Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

---

Images from the article:

(Initially written for the LW Wiki, but then I realized it was looking more like a post instead.)

In 1895, the physicist Ignaz Robert Schütz, who worked as an assistant to the more eminent physicist Ludwig Boltzmann, wondered if our observed universe had simply assembled by a random fluctuation of order from a universe otherwise in thermal equilibrium. The idea was published by Boltzmann in 1896, properly credited to Schütz, and has been associated with Boltzmann ever since.

The obvious objection to this scenario is credited to Arthur Eddington in 1931: If all order is due to random fluctuations, comparatively small moments of order will exponentially-vastly outnumber even slightly larger fluctuations toward order, to say nothing of fluctuations the size of our entire observed universe! If this is where order comes from, we should find ourselves inside much smaller ordered systems.

Feynman similarly later observed: Even if we fill a box of gas with white and black atoms bouncing randomly, and after an exponentially vast amount of time the white and black atoms on one side randomly sort themselves into two neat sides separated by color, the other half of the box will still be in expectation randomized. If [...]

---

First published:

May 16th, 2026


Source:

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/v8MSczS3CuoqMmTFw/a-relatively-brief-explanation-of-boltzmann-brains

---



Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.