My 2024 Presidential Debate
Scott Alexander presents a satirical 2024 presidential debate between Biden and Trump, featuring increasingly absurd positions on various issues.
A thread through the archive
Essays tagged “debate”. Follow an idea across the archive.
Scott Alexander presents a satirical 2024 presidential debate between Biden and Trump, featuring increasingly absurd positions on various issues.
Scott Alexander critiques Lyman Stone's arguments against Effective Altruism, defending the movement's impact, methodology, and philosophical foundations.
Scott Alexander summarizes comments on his healthcare effectiveness debate with Robin Hanson, including clarifications, study author responses, and reader perspectives on various healthcare topics.
Scott Alexander responds to Robin Hanson's reply on medical effectiveness, clarifying interpretations and reiterating arguments about the limitations of insurance experiments in evaluating medical care.
Scott Alexander dissects and criticizes a common argument against AI safety that compares it to past unfulfilled disaster predictions, finding it logically flawed and difficult to steelman.
Scott Alexander reviews a $100,000 debate on COVID-19 origins, where the zoonotic hypothesis unexpectedly won against the lab leak theory.
Scott Alexander responds to comments on his capitalism vs charity post, clarifying his argument and addressing various counterpoints and suggested capitalist charities.
Scott Alexander defends effective altruism against Freddie deBoer's criticism, arguing for its distinctiveness, practical value, and positive marginal effects.
Scott Alexander presents a satirical, fictional Republican primary debate with absurd rules to highlight candidate personalities and critique political debate formats.
Scott Alexander reviews a debate on AI development pauses, discussing various strategies and their potential impacts on AI safety and progress.
Scott Alexander critiques Emil Kirkegaard's evolutionary definition of mental illness, arguing for separate terms to distinguish between social dysfunction and evolutionary fitness concepts.
Scott Alexander discusses reader comments on his post about dating preferences, covering various perspectives and addressing critiques of 'dating docs'.
Scott Alexander responds to criticism of his post on housing density and prices, refining but largely maintaining his argument that increased density can raise local prices.
Scott Alexander defends his thorough analysis of ivermectin studies, arguing that dismissing controversial topics without addressing evidence can inadvertently promote conspiracy theories.
Scott Alexander summarizes comments debating the reality and implications of jhanas, a meditative state of extreme bliss.
Scott Alexander responds to comments on his post about criticism of EA, addressing various points about scientific paradigms, types of criticism, and the ethics of evangelism.
Scott Alexander argues against Gary Marcus's critique of AI scaling, discussing the potential for future AI capabilities and the nature of human intelligence.
Scott Alexander bets that AI models will quickly overcome current limitations, based on how GPT-3 improved on GPT-2's shortcomings identified by Gary Marcus.
Scott Alexander presents and discusses diverse reader reactions to his review of 'Sadly, Porn', touching on the book's controversial ideas and writing style.
Scott Alexander summarizes a debate between Yudkowsky and Christiano on whether AI progress will be gradual or sudden, exploring their key arguments and implications.
Scott Alexander discusses reactions to his 'Justice Creep' article, exploring different perspectives on framing social issues as matters of justice.
Scott Alexander responds to comments on his AI risk post, discussing AI self-awareness, narrow vs. general AI, catastrophe probabilities, and research priorities.
Scott Alexander critiques Daron Acemoglu's Washington Post article on AI risks, highlighting flawed logic and unsupported claims about AI's current impacts.
Glen Weyl responds to Scott Alexander's critique of his technocracy essay, clarifying his position and defending his arguments while acknowledging some limitations.
Scott Alexander presents satirical and absurd 'hardball questions' for 2020 Democratic presidential candidates, showcasing clever wordplay and humorous connections.