# Two easy things that maybe Just Work to improve AI discourse

So, it seems AI discourse on X / Twitter is getting polarised. This is bad. Especially bad is how some engage in deliberate [weaponization of discourse](https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/simulacrum-levels), for political ends. 

At the same time, I observe: AI Twitter is still a small space. There are often important posts that have only ~100 likes, ~10-100 comments, and maybe ~10-30 likes on top comments. Moreover, it seems to me little sane comments, when they do appear, do get upvoted. 

This is... crazy! Consider [this thread](https://x.com/Scott_Wiener/status/1799109395911221310): 

![](https://39669.cdn.cke-cs.com/rQvD3VnunXZu34m86e5f/images/4c0a0fb4de8a33e1038e18c8cdc05f2668817948ee3d7560.png)

A piece of legislation is being discussed, with major ramifications for regulation of frontier models, and... the quality of discourse hinges on whether 5-10 random folks show up and say some sensible stuff on Twitter!?

It took me a while to see these things. I think I had a cached view of "political discourse is hopeless, the masses of trolls are too big for anything to matter, unless you've got some specialised lever or run one of these platforms". 

I now think I was wrong. 

Just like I was wrong for many years about the feasibility of getting public and regulatory support for taking AI risk seriously. 

This begets the following hypothesis: AI discourse might currently be small enough that we could basically just *brute force raise the sanity waterline*. No galaxy-brained stuff. Just a flood of folks making... reasonable arguments. 

It's the dumbest possible plan: let's improve AI discourse by going to places with bad discourse and making good arguments. 

I recognise this is a pretty strange view, and does counter a lot of priors I've built up hanging around LessWrong for the last couple years. If it works, it's because of a surprising, contingent, state of affairs. In a few months or years the numbers might shake out differently. But for the time being, the arbitrage is real. 

Furthermore, there's of course already a built-in feature, with beautiful mechanism design and strong buy-in from X leadership, for increasing the sanity waterline: [Community Notes](https://vitalik.eth.limo/general/2023/08/16/communitynotes.html). It's a feature that allows users to add "notes" to tweets providing context, and then only shows those notes ~if they get upvoted by people who usually disagree. 

![](https://39669.cdn.cke-cs.com/rQvD3VnunXZu34m86e5f/images/e6d203130e6a1551d9bb63cc65fc87690af0bf717c5aa31e.png)

Yet... outside of massive news like the OpenAI NDA scandal, Community Notes is barely being used for AI discourse. I'd guess probably for no more interesting of a reason than that few people use community notes overall, multiplied by few of those engaging in AI discourse. Again, plausibly, the arbitrage is real.

* * *

If you think this sounds compelling, here's two easy ways that might just work to improve AI discourse:

1.  Make an account on X. When you see invalid or bad faith arguments on AI: reply with valid arguments. Upvote other such replies. 
2.  Join Community Notes at [this link](https://x.com/i/communitynotes). Start writing and rating posts. (You'll to need to rate some posts before you're allowed to write your own.)

And, above all: it doesn't matter what conclusion you argue for; as long as you make valid arguments. Pursue [asymmetric strategies](https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/03/24/guided-by-the-beauty-of-our-weapons/), the sword that only cuts if your intention is true.