Online advertising can be used to promote books.  Unlike many books, you are not trying to make a profit and can pay for advertising beyond where the publisher's marginal costs equals marginal revenue.  Do you:

• Have online advertising campaigns set up by your publisher and can absorb donations to spend on more advertising (LLM doubts Little, Brown and Company lets authors spend more money)
• Have $$$ to spend on an advertising campaign but don't have the managerial bandwidth to set one up.  You'd need logistics support to set up an effective advertising campaign.
• Need both money and logistics for an advertising campaign.
  • Alphabet and Meta employees get several hundred dollars per month to spend on on advertising (as incentive to dogfood their product).  If LessWrong employees at those companies setup many $300 / month advertising campaigns, that sounds like a worthwhile investment
• Need neither help setting up an advertising campaign nor funds for more advertising (though donations to MIRI are of course always welcome)

I'm very glad you've used focus groups!  Based solely on the title the results are excellent.  I'm idly curious how you assembled the participants.

Do you have a way to get feedback from Chinese nationalists?  ("America Hawks" in China?).

Given the potentially massive importance of a Chinese version, it may be worth burning $8,000 to start the translation before proofreading is done, particularly if your translators come back with questions that are better clarified in the English text.  I'd pay money to help speed this up if that's the bottleneck^[1].  When I was in China I didn't have a good way of explaining what I was doing and why.

1. ^{^}

   I'm working mostly off savings and wouldn't especially want to, but I would to make it happen.

It's a reference to the title of a novel by Fred Hoyle.

"I think you are being insufficiently truth-seeking" is definitely a thing I would want people to say to me sometimes.  Sometimes I think dumb things (like rationalizing) and it's obvious to other people but I have no idea.

Its a function that eats points in a manifold and spits out (linear functions that eat (linear functions satisfying Leibniz rule that eat (differentiable functions that eats points on a manifold and spit outs real numbers) and spits out real numbers) and spits out real numbers), obviously.

I've thought about the doomsday argument more than daily for the past 15 years, enough for me to go from "Why am I improbably young?" to "Oh, I guess I'm just a person who thinks about the doomsday argument a lot"

Fun "fact": when a person thinks about the doomsday argument, they a decent change of being me.

This is true, and it strongly influences the ways Americans think about how to provide public goods to the rest of the world.  But they're thinking about how to provide public goods the rest of the world^[1].  "America First" is controversial in American intellectual circles, whereas in my (limited) conversations in China people are usually confused about what other sort of policy you would have.

1. ^{^}

   Disclosure: I'm American, I came of age in this era

(Counterpoint: for big groups like bureaucracies, intra-country variances can average out.  I do think we can predict that a group of 100 random Americans writing an AI constitution would place more value on political self-determination and less on political unity than a similar group of Chinese.)

There's more variance within countries than between countries.  Where did the disruptive upstart that cares about Free Software^[1] come from?  China.  Is that because China is more libertarian than the US?  No, it's because there's a wide variance in both the US and China and by chance the most software-libertarian company was Chinese.  Don't treat countries like point estimates.

1. ^{^}

   Free as in freedom, not as in beer