Cade Metz's book on AGI believers sparks distrust in rationalist community

In a newly published transcript from 2025, LessWrong contributor Zack_M_Davis interviews New York Times reporter Cade Metz about his forthcoming book on the rationalist community that championed AGI long before it became a tech industry buzzword. The 32,000-word transcript (edited for clarity) captures a tense exchange where Davis challenges Metz's suitability for the project, citing the community's deep mistrust stemming from the 2020 Scott Alexander controversy—where Metz reported on Slate Star Codex under his real name, leading to the blog's temporary deletion. Metz defends his journalistic approach, arguing that the story of AGI's believers is essential to understanding how the technology came to be.

Beyond the trust issue, the conversation reveals a deeper philosophical conflict within the rationalist movement. Several community members now grapple with the possibility that their decades-long activism—spreading ideas about existential risk from AI and the importance of alignment—may have inadvertently accelerated the very outcome they feared: a powerful AGI built without sufficient safety measures. Davis notes that some rationalists feel "kind of sad" about this irony, though he personally expresses less doom in recent years, pointing to how large language models differ from the utility-maximizing agents assumed by classical AI risk theory.