TopPodcast.com
Menu
  • Home
  • Top Charts
  • Top Networks
  • Top Apps
  • Top Independents
  • Top Podfluencers
  • Top Picks
    • Top Business Podcasts
    • Top True Crime Podcasts
    • Top Finance Podcasts
    • Top Comedy Podcasts
    • Top Music Podcasts
    • Top Womens Podcasts
    • Top Kids Podcasts
    • Top Sports Podcasts
    • Top News Podcasts
    • Top Tech Podcasts
    • Top Crypto Podcasts
    • Top Entrepreneurial Podcasts
    • Top Fantasy Sports Podcasts
    • Top Political Podcasts
    • Top Science Podcasts
    • Top Self Help Podcasts
    • Top Sports Betting Podcasts
    • Top Stocks Podcasts
  • Podcast News
  • About Us
  • Podcast Advertising
  • Contact
Not in our directory?
Add Show Here
Podcast Equipment
Center

toppodcastlogoOur TOPPODCAST Picks

  • Comedy
  • Crypto
  • Sports
  • News
  • Politics
  • True Crime
  • Business
  • Finance

Follow Us

toppodcastlogoStay Connected

    View Top 200 Chart
    Back to Rankings Page
    Technology

    Astral Codex Ten Podcast

    The official audio version of Astral Codex Ten, with an archive of posts from Slate Star Codex. It’s just me reading Scott Alexander’s blog posts.

    Advertise
    • Apple Podcasts
    • Google Play
    • Spotify

    Latest Episodes:
    ACX/Metaculus Prediction Contest 2026 Jan 10, 2026
    Show notes

    This year's prediction contest is live on Metaculus. They write:

    This year's contest draws directly from that community, with all questions suggested by ACX readers. Both experienced forecasters and newcomers are invited to participate, making predictions across U.S. politics, AI, international affairs, and culture.

    To participate, submit your predictions by January 17th at 11:59 PM PT. At that time, we will take a snapshot of all standing forecasts, which will determine the contest rankings and the allocation of the $10,000 prize pool. While you are encouraged to continue updating your predictions throughout the year, forecasts made after January 17th will only affect site leaderboards, not contest rankings.

    You are welcome to create a bot account to forecast and participate in addition to your regular Metaculus account. Create a bot account and get support building a bot here.

    And they've also announced this year's winners for best questions submitted. Congratulations to:

    1. Gumbledalf ($700)
    2. espiritu57 ($500)
    3. setasojiro843047 (Substack handle) ($400)
    4. sai_39 ($300)
    5. nicholaskross ($250)
    6. (Anonymous) ($200)
    7. (Anonymous) ($200)
    8. RMD ($150)
    9. (Anonymous) ($150)
    10. Hippopotamus_bartholomeus ($150)

    To participate in the tournament or learn more, go to Metaculus.

    https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/acxmetaculus-prediction-contest-2026


    Against Against Boomers Jan 10, 2026
    Show notes

    Hating Boomers is the new cool thing. Amazon offerings include A Generation Of Sociopaths: How The Baby Boomers Betrayed America, the two apparently unrelated books How The Boomers Took Their Children's Future and How The Boomers Stole Millennials' Future, and Boomers: The Men And Women Who Promised Freedom But Delivered Disaster. "You don't hate Boomers enough" has become a popular Twitter catchphrase. Richard Hanania, who has tried hating every group once, has decided that hating Boomers is his favorite.

    Some people might say we just experienced a historic upwelling of identity politics, that it was pretty terrible for everyone involved, and that perhaps we need a new us-vs-them conflict like we need a punch to the face. This, the Boomer-haters will tell you, would be a mistaken generalization. This time, we have finally discovered a form of identity politics which carves reality at its joints, truly separating the good and bad people.

    I think these arguments fall short. Even if they didn't, the usual bias against identity politics should make us think twice about pursuing them too zealously.

    https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/against-against-boomers


    The Pledge Jan 10, 2026
    Show notes

    This holiday season, you'll see many charity fundraisers. I've already mentioned three, and I have another lined up for next week's open thread. Many great organizations ask me to signal-boost them, I'm happy to comply, and I'm delighted when any of you donate.

    Still, I used to hate this sort of thing. I'd be reading a blog I liked, then - wham, "please donate to save the starving children". Now I either have to donate to starving children, or feel bad that I didn't. And if I do donate, how much? Obviously no amount would fully reflect the seriousness of the problem. When I was a poor college student, I usually gave $10, because it was a nice round number; when I had more money, I usually gave $50, for the same reason. But then the next week, a different blog would advertise "please donate to save the starving children with cancer", and I'd feel like a shmuck for wasting my donation on non-cancerous starving children. Do I donate another $10, bringing my total up to the non-round number of $20? If I had a spare $20 for altruistic purposes, why hadn't I donated that the first time? It was all so unpleasant, and no matter what I did, I would feel all three of stingy and gullible and irrational.

    This is why I was so excited ten-odd years ago when I discovered the Giving What We Can Pledge. It's a commitment to give a certain percent of your income (originally 10%, but now there's also a 1-10% "trial" pledge) to the most effective charity you know. If you can't figure out which charity is most effective, you can just donate to Against Malaria Foundation, like all the other indecisive people.

    It's not that 10% is obviously the correct number in some deep sense. The people who picked it, picked it because it was big enough to matter, but not so big that nobody would do it. But having been picked, it's become a Schelling point. Take it, and you're one of the 10,000 people who's made this impressive commitment. If someone asks why you're not giving more, you can say "That would dilute the value of the Schelling point we've all agreed on and make it harder for other people to cooperate with us".

    The specific numbers and charities matter less than the way the pledge makes you think about your values and then yoke your behavior to them. In theory we're supposed to do this all the time. Another holiday institution, New Year's Resolutions, also centers around considering your values and yoking your behavior. But they famously don't work: most people don't have the willpower to go to the gym three times a week, or to volunteer at their local animal shelter on Sundays, or whatever else they decide on. That's why GWWC Pledge is so powerful. No willpower involved. Just go to your online banking portal, click click click, and you're done. Over my life, I don't know if I would say I've ever really changed my character or willpower or overall goodness/badness balance by more than a few percent. But I changed the amount I donated by a factor of ~ten, forever, with one very good decision.

    Unless you're a genius or a saint, your money is the strongest tool you have to change the world. 10% of an ordinary First World income donated to AMF saves dozens of lives over a career; even if you're a policeman or firefighter, you'll have trouble matching that through non-financial means. Unless you're Charlie Kirk or Heather Cox Richardson, no amount of your political activism or voting - let alone arguing on the Internet - will match the effect of donating to a politician or a cause you care about. And no amount of carpooling and eating vegan will help the climate as much as donating to carbon capture charities.

    Not an effective altruist? Think it's better to contribute to your local community, school, theater, or church? I'll argue with you later - but for now, my advice is the same. Have you thought really hard about how you should be contributing to your local community, school, theater, or church? (The fundraising letters my family used to get from our synagogue left little doubt about what form of contribution they preferred). Have you pledged some specific amount? You won't give beyond the $10-when-you-see-a-blog-fundraiser level unless you take a real pledge, registered by someone besides yourself - trust me, I've tested this. The GWWC website is mostly pitched at EAs. But if you like churches so much, you can probably get the same effect by pledging to God - and He keeps His own list, and offers His own member perks.

    To the degree that you care about changing the world beyond yourself and your family, in any direction, then the odds are good that this one decision - whether or not to take a binding charitable Pledge - matters more than every other decision you'll ever make combined. Maybe an order of magnitude more. It's something you can do right now, in five minutes. You shouldn't do it in five minutes; you should sit down and think about it hard and talk it over with your loved ones and make sure you're really planning to keep whatever pledge you make. But you could. And then every time you saw a charity fundraiser on a blog, you could think "Oh, sorry, I'm already living my life in accordance with my altruistic values, no thanks!" You wouldn't even have to worry about how much to donate. I don't even donate to half the fundraisers that I signal-boost!

    So if you have time this holiday season, and you're financially secure enough that it won't be a burden, think about whether there's some way you want the world to be different and better, whether there are charities that work on it, and whether you want to donate. Then, take the pledge.

    If you decide you want to do something but it's too stressful to figure out what, take a 3% trial pledge here, give it to Against Malaria Foundation, and come back next year to see if you're ready for the 10% version.

    UPDATE: Bentham's Bulldog also thinks you should take the pledge - here's his post. And I'll match his offer - take the full 10% pledge this month, and comment below so that I know about it, and I'll give you a free lifetime subscription to ACX.

    https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-pledge


    Links For December 2025 Jan 06, 2026
    Show notes

    [I haven't independently verified each link. On average, commenters will end up spotting evidence that around two or three of the links in each links post are wrong or misleading. I correct these as I see them, and will highlight important corrections later, but I can't guarantee I will have caught them all by the time you read this.]

    https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/links-for-december-2025


    Vibecession: Much More Than You Wanted To Know Jan 06, 2026
    Show notes

    The term "vibecession" most strictly refers to a period 2023 - 2024 when economic indicators were up, but consumer sentiment ("vibes") was down. But on a broader level, the whole past decade has been a vibecession.

    Young people complain they've been permanently locked out of opportunity. They will never become homeowners, never be able to support a family, only keep treading water at precarious gig jobs forever. They got a 5.9 GPA and couldn't get into college; they applied to 2,051 companies in the past week without so much as a politely-phrased rejection. Sometime in the 1990s, the Boomers ripped up the social contract where hard work leads to a pleasant middle-class life, replacing it with a hellworld where you will own nothing and numb the pain with algorithmic slop. The only live political question is whether to blame immigrants, blame billionaires, or just trade crypto in the hopes that some memecoin buys you a ticket out of the permanent underclass.

    Meanwhile, economists say things have never been better.

    Are the youth succumbing to a "negativity bias" where they see the past through "rose-colored glasses"? Are the economists looking at some ivory tower High Modernist metric that fails to capture real life? Or is there something more complicated going on?

    We'll start by formally assessing the vibes. Then we'll move on to the economists' arguments that things are fine. Finally, we'll try to resolve the conflict: how bad are things, really?

    https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/vibecession-much-more-than-you-wanted


    The Good News Is That One Side Has Definitively Won The Missing Heritability Debate Dec 17, 2025
    Show notes

    …the bad news is that they can't agree which one.

    I explained the debate more here, but the short version is: twin studies find that most traits are at least 50% genetic, sometimes much more. But molecular studies - that is, attempts to find the precise genes responsible - usually only found enough genes for the traits to be ~10-20% genetic. The remaining 35% was dubbed "missing heritability". Nurturists argued that the twin studies must be wrong; hereditarians argued that missing effect must be in hard-to-find genes.

    The latter seemed plausible because typical genetic studies only investigate the genes that most commonly vary across people - about 0.1% of the genome. Maybe the other 99.9% of genes, even though they rarely vary across people, are so numerous that even their tiny individual effects could add up to a large overall influence. There was no way to be sure, because variation in these genes was too rare to study effectively.

    But as technology improved, funding increased, and questions about heredity became more pressing, geneticists finally set out to do the hard thing. They gathered full genomes - not just the 0.1% - from thousands of people, and applied a whole-genome analysis technique called GREML-WGS. The resulting study was published earlier this month as Estimation and mapping of the missing heritability of human phenotypes, by Wainschtein, Yengo, et al.

    Partisans on both sides agree it's finally resolved the missing heritability debate, but they can't agree on what the resolution is.


    Why AI Safety Won't Make America Lose The Race With China Dec 02, 2025
    Show notes

    If we worry too much about AI safety, will this make us "lose the race with China"1?

    (here "AI safety" means long-term concerns about alignment and hostile superintelligence, as opposed to "AI ethics" concerns like bias or intellectual property.)

    Everything has tradeoffs, regulation vs. progress is a common dichotomy, and the more important you think AI will be, the more important it is that the free world get it first. If you believe in superintelligence, the technological singularity, etc, then you think AI is maximally important, and this issue ought to be high on your mind.

    But when you look at this concretely, it becomes clear that this is too small to matter - so small that even the sign is uncertain.

    https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/why-ai-safety-wont-make-america-lose


    The New AI Consciousness Paper Dec 02, 2025
    Show notes

    Most discourse on AI is low-quality. Most discourse on consciousness is super-abysmal-double-low quality. Multiply these - or maybe raise one to the exponent of the other, or something - and you get the quality of discourse on AI consciousness. It's not great.

    Out-of-the-box AIs mimic human text, and humans almost always describe themselves as conscious. So if you ask an AI whether it is conscious, it will often say yes. But because companies know this will happen, and don't want to give their customers existential crises, they hard-code in a command for the AIs to answer that they aren't conscious. Any response the AIs give will be determined by these two conflicting biases, and therefore not really believable. A recent paper expands on this method by subjecting AIs to a mechanistic interpretability "lie detector" test; it finds that AIs which say they're conscious think they're telling the truth, and AIs which say they're not conscious think they're lying. But it's hard to be sure this isn't just the copying-human-text thing. Can we do better? Unclear; the more common outcome for people who dip their toes in this space is to do much, much worse.

    But a rare bright spot has appeared: a seminal paper published earlier this month in Trends In Cognitive Science, Identifying Indicators Of Consciousness In AI Systems. Authors include Turing-Award-winning AI researcher Yoshua Bengio, leading philosopher of consciousness David Chalmers, and even a few members of our conspiracy. If any AI consciousness research can rise to the level of merely awful, surely we will find it here.

    One might divide theories of consciousness into three bins:

    https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/the-new-ai-consciousness-paper


    Suggest Questions For Metaculus/ACX Forecasting Contest Dec 02, 2025
    Show notes

    ACX has been co-running a forecasting contest with Metaculus for the past few years. Lately the "co-running" has drifted towards them doing all the work and giving me credit, but that's how I like it! Last year's contest included more than 4500 forecasters predicting on 33 questions covering US politics, international events, AI, and more.

    They're preparing for this year's contest, and currently looking for interesting questions. These could be any objective outcome that might or might not happen in 2026, whose answer will be known by the end of the year. Not "Will Congress do a good job?", but "Will Congress' approval rating be above 40% on December 1, 2026?". Or, even better, "Will Congress' approval rating be above 40% according to the first NYT Congressional Approval Tracker update to be published after December 1, 2026?". Please share ideas for 2026 forecast questions here. The top ten question contributors will win prizes from $150 to $700. You can see examples of last year's questions here (click on each one for more details).

    This year's contest will also include AI bots, who will compete against the humans and one another for prizes of their own. To learn more about building a Metaculus forecasting bot, see here.

    I'll keep you updated on when the contest begins.

    https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/suggest-questions-for-metaculusacx


    What Happened To SF Homelessness? Dec 02, 2025
    Show notes

    Last year, I wrote that it would be very hard to decrease the number of mentally ill homeless people in San Francisco. Commenters argued that no, it would be easy, just build more jails and mental hospitals.

    A year later, San Francisco feels safer. Visible homelessness is way down. But there wasn't enough time to build many more jails or mental hospitals. So what happened? Were we all wrong?

    Probably not. I only did a cursory investigation, and this is all low-confidence, but it looks like:

    1. There was a big decrease in tent encampments, because a series of court cases made it easier for cities to clear them. Most of the former campers are still homeless. They just don't have tents.
    2. There might have been a small decrease in overall homelessness, probably because of falling rents.
    3. Mayor Lurie claims to have a Plan To End Homelessness, but it's probably not responsible for the difference.
    4. Every city accuses every other city of shipping homeless people across their borders, but this probably doesn't explain most of what's going on in San Francisco in particular.

    https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/what-happened-to-sf-homelessness


    Previous 1 7 8 9 10 11 120 Next

    Related Podcasts

    Reply All

    1

    Reply All Games & Hobbies
    Inside VR & AR

    2

    Inside VR & AR Gadgets
    Note to Self

    3

    Note to Self News
    BrainStuff

    4

    BrainStuff Natural Sciences
    This Week in Tech (Audio)

    5

    This Week in Tech (Audio) News
    Hands-On Tech (Audio)

    6

    Hands-On Tech (Audio) Technology
    footer-logo

    Contact Us

    Toll Free: 844-670-7747

    Links

    • Home
    • Top Charts
    • Networks
    • Apps
    • Independents Podcasts
    • Podcast Advertising
    • Podcast News
    • Contact Us
    • About Us
    • Analytics & Insights

    Stay Connected

      Privacy, Terms of Use & Our Code of Ethics Protecting Content Creators Copyrights