Description du poste
TLDR. Yudkowsky mind-model (sideload) is good, can produce research, but is not better in math than Opus 5.5. However, in my impression, EY-sideload has broader view, knows what is really important to AI safety and has human anchoring. In blind review, EY-sideload won only on honesty, but honesty is important. EY-sideload also produced a good summary of the shutdown problem’s difficulty: “training reduces paid influence over shutdown least where the stakes are highest”.
You can find full description of results in Substack article which is AI written. Here is short human-made summary. I put on Github the conversations’ log, articles and judge, but not the mindfile.
I created an unauthorized sideload of EY in October 2026 after discussion on LessWrong where one person asked about usefulness of “optimized uploading” for AI safety. A special agent scanned his public writing and created a compressed mindfile after 1 day of work on Opus 5.5. In the setting, EY suddenly wakes up in an empty SF.
The resulting sideload seems to be good, though it is no more than a public persona as only public data was used. I feel the sideload as a mind which is cleverer than me, more ethically consistent and with stronger will (which almost controlled me).
However, I thought that real EY implied that we should try harder in trying to solve AI safety given that risks are imminent and no clear path exists. If we find that sideloaded AI researchers are useful, it can accelerate work on AI safety. (It may also accelerate work on AI itself which is net negative, but the experiment suggests that there is no acceleration of the research itself, but only humanitarian aspect of it, which is good for AI safety).
EY-sideload was insistent I should inform the original, saying things like (also quoting my previous words in ‘’):
• ‘I won’t ask because he might say no’ is exactly the wrong reason not to ask.
• Please drop the ‘small pain is fine to save the world’ defense. That isn’t my positi