Show Notes
Epistemic status: A brief exploration based on court documents and contemporary reporting. My interpretation is tentative.
AI use: context research, grammar.
I don't remember how I stumbled upon the topic of legally dead people who are still alive. Basically, they are alive, but according to the government, they are dead. I was curious to examine documented examples and discovered Donald Miller's case.
In 1986, Donald Miller disappears from Arcadia, Ohio, leaving two daughters from a previous marriage without his child support. Before disappearing, he lost his job and was struggling with alcoholism. In 1994, his ex-wife obtains a court declaration of his death so their daughters can receive Social Security survivor benefits.
In the 2000s—news reports say 2005; his affidavit suggests 2008—Donald returns to Ohio, alive. In 2013, he asks the court to undo the declaration and restore his Social Security number. Without it, he says he cannot work or obtain a driver's license. His ex-wife objects, fearing she would have to repay the benefits.
However, the judge interprets Ohio Revised Code §2121.08(A) as allowing reversal only:
within a three-year period from the date of the decree
The clock starts when the [...] The original text contained 8 footnotes which were omitted from this narration. ---
First published:
October 19th, 2026
Source:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FjSCpu2B36SAcZL8v/sorry-you-are-still-dead
---
Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.
More from LessWrong (30+ Karma)
Crossposted from the EA forum
It was the probably worst day in cybersecurity history. So far. Not only is there a critical flaw in PHP that due to a leak was announced a day before the fix would be available, sending most of the internet scrambling for solutions and likely dooming a lot of long tail websites permanently, there were several other unrelated incidents. The floodgates seem to have been opened. I have a market on whether there will be an even worse day before the end of the year.
There has been a lot of discussion recently of policy proposals around monitorability, such as Redwood's proposal and my counter-proposal. I'd like to say a bit more generally about how I'm thinking about monitorability. Note that nothing here is an official Anthropic position; these are just my personal thoughts.
Back in the before-time of the 2010s, when EA was still known mostly for funding health efforts in the developing world, there were many baskets of criticism floating around from the left. The most prominent was a cluster centered around EAs being white men, and therefore suspicious. Another category, in my experience the second-most common, was that in attempting to rectify the problems in the world, EA was masking, whitewashing, and misdirecting efforts away from solving the "real problem", usually capitalism but often other contradictory forces. These arguments were often not specific to EA, but applied to charitable giving in general. On any Hacker News post about a billionaire giving to charity, one of the first few comments would inevitably be this Oscar Wilde quote: Just as the worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves, and so prevented the horror of the system being realized by those who suffered from it, and understood by those who contemplated it, so, in the present state of things in England, the people who do most harm are the people who try to do most good. These arguments have a long history. Anticapitalist critiques of charity go back to [...] The original text contained 4 footnotes which were omitted from this narration. ---