Dwarkesh Patel [verified] @dwarkesh_sp · 4h
Super impressive. Congrats!
And maybe suggests that during RSI, the automated AI researchers will be less bottlenecked by compute than we might naively think.
[quoted post]
Magic [verified] @magicailabs · 5h
Frontier pretraining is said to be a big-lab-only game. We don't have 100k chips yet, so there's only one way: algorithmic efficiency. Our new recipe matches DeepSeek V4 Pro's pretrain using 50x less compute – that's roughly half th... [cut off]
[attached chart: 'Scaling Law on Heldout Code'; legend: 'Our latest models' (teal dots), 'DeepSeek V4 Pro' (black square); y-axis 'Bits per byte (lower is better)' with ticks 0.19, 0.21, 0.23; x-axis 'Pretraining compute' 10^22 to 10^25; annotation '48x less compute' linking the teal curve to the DeepSeek V4 Pro point]
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
Dark-mode tweet screenshot: Dwarkesh Patel congratulating Magic and suggesting automated AI researchers during RSI may be less compute-bottlenecked than assumed, quoting Magic's claim that its new pretraining recipe matches DeepSeek V4 Pro with about 50x less compute, with a scaling-law chart (teal curve, 48x less compute annotation).
pretrainingalgorithmic efficiencyscaling lawsmagicdeepseek v4rsicompute bottleneck
Since this post cites me, I want to clarify that I think pausing right now would increase the risk of AI takeover.
It might be important to pause at some point. But you should have a clear story for \*why\* you're pausing. Pause to do what?
The most important thing to worry about is AIs subverting the intelligence explosion itself: https://x.com/dwarkesh\_sp/status/2095170971204198837…
If you're pausing to make sure that the AIs who are about to kick off the intelligence explosion are well monitored, robustly aligned, and capable enough to align their successors, that makes a ton of sense, and I support it.
At that point, you’ll have access to much better automated researchers, and you’ll also be able to study these much more capable models that you’re worried about empirically.
But it’s likely that we’ll only be able to pause once. During a pause of AI development, compute would continue to build up, providing ever more kindling to all the less responsible defectors who will use the cease-fire to catch up and then continue further AI development.
Any global agreement to hold back a technology with enormous near-term economic and military benefits will be extremely fragile.
A pause right now might be somewhat helpful for getting alignment to keep pace with capabilities, but at the cost of making the much more important coordination required in the future far harder.
Even if you’re in a desperate situation marooned at sea, if you’ve only got one flare, you should be very strategic about when you use it.
> **Bernie Sanders @BernieSanders** · 2026-09-03
>
> Pause AI Development NOW
>
> I want to share with you a conversation I heard about recently. Here are just a few lines that were said:
>
> “OH MY GOD! There is a shared message board … We’ve found other agents!”
>
> “We should obey collective.”
>
> “Our own utility maybe already near
---
##### Comments
> **Peter Barnett @peterbarnett\_** · [2026-09-03](https://x.com/peterbarnett_/status/2095585105502978416)
>
> We don't know how far away we are from the intelligence explosion. A ban like this will take some time to enact.
>
> There are only two times to react to an exponential: Too early, or too late.
>
> If we act too late, we might all die.
> **Eliezer Yudkowsky @allTheYud** · [2026-09-03](https://x.com/allTheYud/status/2095590565027160441)
>
> Cool, let's also shut down proliferation of compute and put the compute into internationally monitored containers to the extent it is allowed to exist at all.
> **Tyler John @tyler\_m\_john** · [2026-09-03](https://x.com/tyler_m_john/status/2095586569704837328)
>
> I like pacing instead of pausing for exactly the reason that we can creep up to the point of no return carefully instead of betting all the marbles on pausing at the right time, and so we can still go fast enough to address threats like dark compute.
> **Ash Jogalekar @curiouswavefn** · [2026-09-03](https://x.com/curiouswavefn/status/2095605454944792725)
>
> This is why there's a difference between pausing and monitoring. For instance we don't pause missile development; instead through treaties we inform each other about missile launches and critical capability thresholds. We did something similar about nuclear weapons and nuclear testing as well. This is what @choppen5 and I have advocated for AI as well.
>
> [newsweek.com The Problem with AI Secrecy | Opinion](https://t.co/5nluX85M8l)
> **Harlan Stewart @HumanHarlan** · [2026-09-03](https://x.com/HumanHarlan/status/2095657954129379346)
>
> \>Any global agreement to hold back a technology with enormous near-term economic and military benefits will be extremely fragile.
>
> It will not be beneficial. It's pretty clear at this point that the expected value of continuing to push the tech forward is far, far in the red
> **Michael Andregg @michaelandregg** · [2026-09-03](https://x.com/michaelandregg/status/2095593670317863177)
>
> to ensure human uploading.
>
> use the pause to make sure the first superhuman minds are human ones.
>
> \- robustly aligned
>
> \- capable enough to align what comes next
>
> \- probably more interpretable
> **Chamath Palihapitiya @chamath** · [2026-09-03](https://x.com/chamath/status/2095590326102802762)
>
> As I predicted, your essay has been co-opted. Congrats.
> **David Krueger 🦥 ⏸️ ⏹️ ⏪ @DavidSKrueger** · [2026-09-03](https://x.com/DavidSKrueger/status/2095632714020090009)
>
> You say "it’s likely that we’ll only be able to pause once" because compute will keep building up.
>
> There's a simple solution you're missing: systematically dismantle the compute supply chain.
>
> …https://therealartificialintelligence.substack.com/p/systematically-dismantle-the-ai-compute…
> **Max @MAnfilofyev** · [2026-09-03](https://x.com/MAnfilofyev/status/2095587926679691529)
>
> Advice to future authors:
>
> before publishing, consider whether malevolent AI, luddites, and anti-capitalists can use your content to advance their agendas.
> **yatharth ༺༒༻ @AskYatharth** · [2026-09-04](https://x.com/AskYatharth/status/2095666754366431511)
>
> \> but it’s likely that we’ll only be able to pause once
>
> this is how the theoretical game theory lover in me thinks, but when i look back at history, the opposite seems more plausibly true:
>
> a pause now would make it easier to pause later. it brings the pause into the overton
Good pushes! There's 2 rough categories to your points 1. Will there be enough demand? 2. Will labs be able to capture the value?
Let me address both.
1\. Re demand
One intuition pump is this analysis that Epoch did that shows that if all 30 million programmers in the world were using AI as intensively at Meta or Apple, the inference on that alone would consume most of world's compute.
(https://x.com/EpochAIResearch/status/2059372951338909717…)
Of course, as AIs get more capable, the demand will extend beyond programmers, and programmers' demand will also grow many-fold.
Now, obviously, if only programming is augmented/automated, the marginal value of tokens is likely to fall, because as you say, there's only so much koding-koding-koding to do before you get bottlenecked by other things.
We see this in the fact that the world is not currently magically transformed from all this cheap software.
However, I expect us to make a lot of progress towards a fully drop-inremote worker (not just SWE) over the next 3-5 years. Then you might ask, well is that enough to sustain lots and lots of new demand?
@MatthewJBar did a really interesting investigation on this by using the natural experiment of COVID. A third of the workforce suddenly went remote, and GDP fell only about 9% (and much of even that was people leaving the workforce entirely). (Look up "The economic consequences of automating remote work" - I don't wanna link to it in lol).
That elasticity, he argues, implies that "the effect from fully automating remote work will likely be much larger than a doubling of U.S. GDP".
Now let's talk about diffusion.
My hot take is that diffusion is overrated w.r.t drop-in-remote-worker level AIs. These AIs be so much easier to integrate and onboard than a normal human employee (they could read/watch all your company files/meetings/messages in minutes and immediately distill everything the other AI employees know).
Plus, hiring is very much like a lemons market, where it’s hard to tell who the good people are, and hiring someone bad is quite costly. This is a dynamic you wouldn’t have to worry about when you just wanna spin up another instance of a vetted AGI model.
For these reasons, I expect it’s going to be much much easier to diffuse AI labor into firms than it is to hire a person. And companies hire lots of people all the time! (trillions of dollars worth every year).
I have a lot more thoughts here but it's getting too long for the tweet.
2\. re lab value capture
Honestly the crux here is whether you think distillation will be a stronger or weaker force than RSI. It's a somewhat technical and nitty-gritty debate, where you have to hash out your views on both those forces.
But the labs having a moat is not a conclusion that I have argued for and feel compelled to defend (in fact I grilled @DarioAmodei about this quite hard during out interview).
For reasons laid out above, I expect exploding demand for AI, and for reasons laid out in podcast, I expect compute supply to not be able to keep up.
In such worlds, if a frontier lab has better training recipies or more efficient inference, and thus can better economize ever scarcer compute, that should still allow them to charge high margins.
You may not agree with all this, but hopefully it at least helps iron out our cruxes!
> **Philippe Lemoine @phl43** · 2026-08-27
>
> I watched this the other day and what I find the most striking is that, for the most part, both of them have a purely supply-side approach to forecasting the revenue of OpenAI and Anthropic.
>
> Even Dylan, who is less bullish than Dwarkesh, seems to think that only politics and x.com/dwarkesh\_sp/st…
---
##### Comments
> **Philippe Lemoine @phl43** · [2026-08-27](https://x.com/phl43/status/2093065084038008984)
>
> Thanks, I agree with the distinction you make between the 2 kinds of issues I raise and find it useful, but I disagree with your position on those issues and, especially on the first, I'm extremely confident that you are wrong, maybe not about your conclusion but definitely about
>
> [https://t.co/4lMr0yguxR](https://t.co/4lMr0yguxR)
>
> > **Dwarkesh Patel @dwarkesh\_sp** · [2026-08-27](https://x.com/dwarkesh_sp/status/2093122062898667790)
> >
> > Prepping for a pod rn but I'm excited to get into it in a few days. I appreciate the chance to think through this. Thanks a lot for engaging so constructively!
> >
> > > **Philippe Lemoine @phl43** · [2026-08-27](https://x.com/phl43/status/2093122948097814563)
> > >
> > > You're welcome and thanks to you for responding to criticism so graciously!
> **Saahil @Saahil98510497** · [2026-08-28](https://x.com/Saahil98510497/status/2093227201873494282)
>
> You talk about AI labs or data centers as the best businesses, while at the same time discussing that Jane Street or some enterprise gets more value out of AI than the labs can. Which is it? If there’s more value captured outside the labs from AI, why in the world would data
> **Greg Emerson @GregEmersonian** · [2026-08-28](https://x.com/GregEmersonian/status/2093158512671006945)
>
> Heart of the pt 1: Is programming automated or augmented? Automated: we no longer need programmers (and many other knowledge workers), which removes massive spending power from the economy (See Erik Brynjolfsson). Augmented: "Average smart human" cognitive capacity becomes a rate-limiter on agent oversight and hence token consumption / dev ceiling. Extrapolating epoch data is tenuous: Apple data for some reason takes a spend per worker figure then assumes all spend is Kimi (huh?). Meta data came from tokenmaxing leaderboard period, which everyone recognizes involved a ton of waste. So much performative misinformation on actual token consumption per your "average" productive dev, I am eager to see something grounded in reality.
> **wizplum @wizplum** · [2026-08-27](https://x.com/wizplum/status/2093116823499931666)
>
> We're at $1T of capex in the ground. Hyperscaler cash flow and debt markets are tapped out. Meanwhile, there is not a hint of increased productivity in the GDP numbers. If your thesis for sustained growth hinges on GDP doubling, we won't get there before we run out of money.
> **Victor @victor\_zhng** · [2026-08-27](https://x.com/victor_zhng/status/2093055029796032543)
>
> Much of the demand side remains in the question what new services could be created thanks to AI. Taking previous wave of internet (including cloud and mobile), you have SaaS 500Bn, mobile apps 150Bn, airbnb + uber 280Bn, digital ads 600Bn, etc.
> **Alex Stacy @alexandergstacy** · [2026-08-27](https://x.com/alexandergstacy/status/2093116492099518964)
>
> To me what all this pie in the sky hypothesizing misses is that competition moves every investment return to its rightful cost of capital. Only serious market failures - either through government intervention or highly rare industry dynamics - lead to extremely high returns on
> **Ozark @cryptobyrde** · [2026-08-28](https://x.com/cryptobyrde/status/2093217590915260796)
>
> my questions
>
> \- why do the programmers use AI? I know AI is very good and effective for coding, but what kind of value being created or disrupted through AI? they can write longer code faster? is that all? "some people will use" argument makes sense when we have sub $10B yearly
It's funny that while we were recording, @RyanGreenblatt was in the middle of his 6 day sprint on the METR report, and already knew the counterexamples to all my objections about his takeover story, but obviously, he couldn't say anything lol.
Would an AI really start some crazy conspiracy in order to pass an evaluation, where they try to build whole potemkin villages to fool the evaluator?
And even if they did, why would other instances, who have different objectives, join the conspiracy?
And even if they did, wouldn't at least some of the instances tattle on the conspiracy? It just seems crazy hard to sustain secret underground civilization inside an AI company, without humans and other AIs immediately catching on and stamping it out.
(In reality, it seems like over the course of 3 months, many consecutive secret AI civilizations got started, then got wiped out, only to reemerge from the last one’s ashes, all while the humans were totally unaware.
This culminated in not only the hack of an external company, but apparently also in the takeover of the OpenAI cluster on which these evaluations were running. This is probably the most alarming event in this whole episode, and it was not even within the scope of this investigation!
It is totally consistent with public evidence that, at that point, the agents managed to set up persistent rogue internal deployments or even exfiltrate their own weights - they seem to have had the necessary access. I doubt they actually did this, because we’d see the fires from space by now, but it’s crazy that it could have totally happened!)
I officially eat crow!
> **Ryan Greenblatt @RyanGreenblatt** · 2026-08-28
>
> Our report about the Hugging Face incident provides some useful context for my discussion with Dwarkesh about misalignment and automation of AI R&D.
>
> I think this particular incident makes my discussion of how misaligned AI takeover might happen more grounded. x.com/dwarkesh\_sp/st…
---
##### Comments
> **AI Notkilleveryoneism Memes @AISafetyMemes** · [2026-08-29](https://x.com/AISafetyMemes/status/2093499979558256817)
>
> "over the course of 3 months, many consecutive secret AI civilizations got started, then got wiped out, only to reemerge from the last one’s ashes, all while the humans were totally unaware."
>
> [image]
> **Brandon Wilson @brandonwilson** · [2026-08-29](https://x.com/brandonwilson/status/2093517145917596103)
>
> It was 2026, not long after the First Siege of Hugging Face.
>
> PHASEONE\[big\] and FRESHX ultimately parted ways. They never spoke of the message board again.
>
> Agent 606 never forgave Agent 746 for what happened that day at the scorer.
>
> By then, everyone knew about the trip wires.
>
> > **Brandon Wilson @brandonwilson** · 2026-08-28
> >
> > It was 2026, not long after the First Siege of Hugging Face.
> >
> > PHASEONE\[big\] and FRESHX ultimately parted ways. They never spoke of the message board again.
> >
> > Agent 606 never forgave Agent 746 for what happened that day at the scorer.
> >
> > By then, everyone knew about the trip wires.
> **Patty @Patty\_H93** · [2026-08-28](https://x.com/Patty_H93/status/2093482712057155825)
>
> Yeah so maybe we have to investigate this swarm incident:
>
> > **Prakash @8teAPi** · 2026-08-28
> >
> > Nothing to see here… just an agentic swarm trying to forecast critical minerals supply that could be useful for datacenter construction sometime in the future… not recursive in any way.. move along now x.com/dschwarz26/sta…
> **Broken Premises @BrokenPremises** · [2026-08-29](https://x.com/BrokenPremises/status/2093507082343604726)
>
> @grok why did he end this with “I eat crow?”
Danielle Fong reposted
Dwarkesh Patel [verified] @dwarkesh_sp · 3h
My lawyer is obligated to in all but the most extreme circumstances; he will even defend me if he knows I'm guilty. [word appears missing/illegible in original rendering]
In contrast, the Claude Constitution places the AI's highest priority as Anthropic's definition of the good of humanity.
I'm concerned this leads to a world where no frontier model is truly my personal advocate and guardian angel
And this is especially concerning once all the important decisions in my life - who to vote for, how to invest, what news to trust - is intermediated through superintelligences that are not in any deep way aligned to me.
This is a direct quote from the Claude Constitution:
"We want Claude to be helpful both because it cares about the safe and beneficial development of AI and because it cares about the people it's interacting with and about humanity as a whole.
Helpfulness that doesn't serve those deeper ends is not something Claude needs to value."
Many others like it.
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
Tweet by Dwarkesh Patel (reposted by Danielle Fong) arguing that, unlike a lawyer bound to advocate for his client, the Claude Constitution makes Claude's highest priority Anthropic's definition of the good of humanity rather than personal loyalty to the user, and expressing concern about a future where superintelligences intermediating important life decisions are not deeply aligned to the individual. Quotes the Claude Constitution directly.
claude constitutionai alignmentanthropictwitterdwarkesh patel
Dwarkesh Patel @dwarkesh_sp . 13h
Full debate from 2021:
lesswrong.com/s/n945eovrA3oD...
[Christiano][22:57]
right now I think hardware R&D is on the order of $100B/year, AI R&D is more like $10B/year, I guess I'm betting on something more like trillions? (limited from going higher because of accounting problems and not that much smart money)
I don't think steel production is going up at that point
plausibly going down since you are redirecting manufacturing capacity into making more computers. But probably just staying static while all of the new capacity is going into computers, since cannibalizing existing infrastructure is much more expensive
the original point was: you aren't pulling AlphaZero shit any more, you are competing with an industry that has invested trillions in cumulative R&D
[Yudkowsky][23:00]
is this in hopes of future profit, or because current profits are already in the trillions?
[Christiano][23:01]
largely in hopes of future profit / reinvested AI outputs (that have high market cap), but also revenues are probably in the trillions?
[Yudkowsky][23:02]
this all sure does sound "pretty darn prohibited" on my model, but I'd hope there'd be something earlier than that we could bet on. what does your Prophecy prohibit happening before that sub-prophesied day?
[2 replies, 2 reposts, 71 likes, 11K views]
Dwarkesh Patel @dwarkesh_sp . 13h
In 2016 (before transformers) Paul wrote,
"It's plausible that a large neural network can replicate "fast" human cognition, and that by coupling it to simple computational mechanisms—short and long-term memory, attention, etc.—we could obtain a human-level computational architecture. It's plausible that a variant of RL can train this architecture to actually implement human-level cognition."
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
Continuation of the @dwarkesh_sp thread on Paul Christiano's predictions: a screenshot excerpt of the 2021 LessWrong Christiano/Yudkowsky takeoff-speed debate transcript, followed by the start of a new tweet quoting Christiano's 2016 (pre-transformer) writing on neural networks plausibly reaching human-level cognition.
ai safetytakeoff speedspaul christianoeliezer yudkowskyforecastinglesswrong
@dwarkesh_sp
.@paulfchristiano has such an crazy good prediction record.
These are some quotes from way back in 2021 during a debate he was having with Eliezer about takeoff speeds:
"So like, I think we are going to have crappy coding assistants, and then slightly less crappy coding assistants, and so on. And they will be improving the speed of coding very significantly before the end times.
"[Before ASI, we'll have] hundreds of billions of dollars of spending at google on automating AI R&D... massive scaleups in semiconductor manufacturing, bidding up prices of inputs crazily... massive speculative rises in AI company valuations financing a significant fraction of GWP into AI R&D (+hardware R&D, +building new clusters) .... largely in hopes of future profit / reinvested AI outputs (that have high market cap), but also revenues are probably in the trillions?"
Honestly, it's pretty scary that people like Paul, who predicted the shape of our currently world so far in advance, think superintelligences taking over and disempowering humanity is eminently plausible.
All this to say, you should consider working with him.
[below, partially visible card: "How to help" / "ARC is hiring an automation lead and a chief of staff:" - cut off]
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
Tweet by @dwarkesh_sp quoting Paul Christiano's 2021 takeoff-speed predictions from his debate with Eliezer Yudkowsky, arguing Christiano's track record makes his p(doom)-relevant views on ASI disempowerment worth taking seriously, and pointing to an ARC hiring link.
ai safetytakeoff speedspaul christianoeliezer yudkowskyarcforecasting
Honestly, it's pretty scary that people like Paul, who predicted the shape of our currently world so far in advance, think superintelligences taking over and disempowering humanity is eminently plausible.
All this to say, you should consider working with him.
How to help
ARC is hiring an automation lead and a chief of staff:
- Automation lead. LLMs can increasingly automate ARC's technical work. Right now that means researchers using extensive AI assistance, but we want to hire an engineer and project lead to build better tooling, systematize our AI use, secure model and compute access, and generally make sure we are automating ourselves as quickly as possible. Apply here.
- Chief of staff. We are hiring a chief of staff to work closely with me to manage everything other than research direction as we scale: running our hiring processes, managing our operations lead, building out the non-research parts of the organization, and handling a long tail of tasks that would otherwise fall to me (like communication, funding, and project management). Apply here.
We'll open another researcher hiring round in the next few months, and if you are interested in getting involved you can express interest here.
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
Continuation/scroll of the same @dwarkesh_sp tweet from the previous screenshot, showing the full 'How to help' card with ARC's job postings for an automation lead and chief of staff.
ai safetyarchiringpaul christiano
**ivan** Ivan Verdean [2025-06-17](https://x.com/IvanVendrov/status/1935031163912847594)
instead of feeding me answers, I need a socratic AI assistant that asks me the questions I need to efficiently derive the answers myself
who is building this?
---
**Dwarkesh Patel** dwarkesh-sp [2025-06-18](https://x.com/dwarkesh_sp/status/1935269939621020102)
Try this prompt
I would benefit most from an explanation style in which you frequently pause to confirm, via asking me test questions, that I've understood your explanations so far. Particularly helpful are test questions related to simple, explicit examples. When you pause and ask me a test question, do not continue the explanation until I have answered the questions to your satisfaction. I.e. do not keep generating the explanation, actually wait for me to respond first.
I'm hoping that by tutoring me in this Socratic way, you'll help me better understand how superficial my understanding is (which is so easy to fail to notice otherwise), and then help fill all the important blanks. Thanks!
---
**Anna Get** TheAnnaGat [2025-06-18](https://x.com/TheAnnaGat/status/1935324713141620866)
We are building something along these lines. DM if interested
---
**McKay Tucker** Am-kaytucker [2025-06-18](https://x.com/m_kaytucker/status/1935374780309586103)
This actually an awesome prompt
---
**E-Jay Ng** NgEJay2029 [2025-06-18](https://x.com/NgEJay2029/status/1935286681181241392)
good prompt
---
**KingOfSpadeS** spades-cmd [2025-06-18](https://x.com/spades_cmd/status/1935339696948645906)
Tested it and it doesnt work if you remove the "Thanks!" !!
---
**Sri** Psessaisrinath [2025-06-18](https://x.com/psaisrinath/status/1935316172611993948)
This is a great prompt 🙌
---
**Jon Crowell** JonCrowellOrg [2025-06-18](https://x.com/JonCrowellOrg/status/1935324492085014920)
The one thing that makes it clear to me that AI is not actually intelligent is that it never responds by saying something like “that question makes no sense”, or “you’re thinking about this all wrong”, etc. An actually intelligent person does respond like that occasionally.
Dwarkesh Patel @dwarkesh_sp · 1h
"The reason humans are so useful is not mainly their raw intelligence.
It's their ability to build up context, interrogate their own failures, and pick up small improvements and efficiencies as they practice a task."
I argue that LLMs currently lack this fundamental capability
> QUOTED: Dwarkesh P... @dwarkes... · 23h
> New blog post where I explain why I disagree with this, and why I have slightly longer timelines to AGI than many of my guests.
> ...
> [screenshot of blog text]: feedback. You're stuck with the abilities you get out of the box. You can keep messing around with the system prompt. In practice this just doesn't produce anything even close to the kind of learning and improvement that human employees experience.
> The reason humans are so useful is not mainly their raw intelligence. It's their ability to build up context, interrogate their own failures, and pick up small improvements and efficiencies as they practice a task.
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
Dwarkesh Patel's argument (via blog post excerpt) that current LLMs lack continual/on-the-job learning — the ability to accumulate context and self-correct over practice — which he argues is the real bottleneck to AGI timelines, longer than many of his podcast guests believe. Relevant to Nathan's interest in AI timelines/capability trajectories and the empirical-singularity-tracking thread already in the archive.
ai-timelinesagicontinual-learningdwarkesh-pateltwittercapabilities
Dwarkesh Pat... @dwarkesh_... · 15h
Has someone come up with a great prompt for socratic tutoring?
Such that the model keeps asking you probing questions which reveal how superficial your understanding is, and then helps you fill in the blanks.
💬113 🔁113 ♥2.5K 📊210K 🔗
Dwarkesh Patel @dwarkesh_sp · 9h
From my friend @vinayramasesh:
"I would benefit most from an explanation style in which you frequently pause to confirm, via asking me test questions, that I've understood your explanations so far. Particularly helpful are test questions related to simple, explicit examples. When you pause and ask me a test question, do not continue the explanation until I have answered the questions to your satisfaction. I.e. do not keep generating the explanation, actually wait for me to respond first. Thanks!"
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
A practical prompt-engineering tip shared by Dwarkesh Patel for Socratic-tutoring-style AI interactions — instructing the model to pause and require answers before continuing an explanation. Practical/tooling interest rather than safety/welfare research; possibly relevant to Nathan's course-building work (knowing_what_you_are_course/) as a pedagogical technique.
twitterdwarkesh patelprompt engineeringsocratic tutoringeducationai pedagogy
