Your third paragraph mentions "all AI company staff" and the last refers to "risk evaluators" (i.e. "everyone within these companies charged with sounding the alarm"). Are these groups roughly the same or is the latter subgroup significantly smaller?

I agree. I would not expect the effect on health over 3 years to be significant outside of specific cases like it allowing someone to afford a critical treatment (e.g. insulin for a diabetic person), especially given the focus on a younger population.

This is a cool paper with an elegant approach!

It reminds me of a post from earlier this year on a similar topic that I highly recommend to anyone reading this post: Ironing Out the Squiggles

OP's model does not resonate with my experience either. For me, it's similar to constantly having the flu (or long COVID) in the sense that you persistently feel bad, and doing anything requires extra effort proportional to the severity of symptoms. The difference is that the symptoms mostly manifest in the brain rather than the body.

This is a cool idea in theory, but imagine how it would play out in reality when billions of dollars are at stake. Who decides the damage amount and the probabilities involved and how? Even if these were objectively computable and independent of metaethical uncertainty, the incentives for distorting them would be immense. This only seems feasible when damages and risks are well understood and there is consensus around an agreed-upon causal model.

I also guessed the ratio of the spheres was between 2 and 3 (and clearly larger than 2) by imagining their weight.

I was following along with the post about how we mostly think in terms of surfaces until the orange example. Having peeled many oranges and separated them into sections, they are easy for me to imagine in 3D, and I have only a weak "mind's eye" and moderate 3D spatial reasoning ability.

Even for people who understand your intended references, that won't prevent them from thinking about the evil-spirit association and having bad vibes.

Being familiar with daemons in the computing context, I perceive the term as whimsical and fairly innocuous.

The section on Chevron Overturned surprised me. Maybe I'm in an echo chamber, but my impression was that most legal scholars (not including the Federalist Society and The Heritage Foundation) consider the decision to be the SCOTUS arrogating yet more power to the judicial branch, overturning 40 years of precedent (which was based on a unanimous decision) without sufficient justification.

I consider the idea that "legislators should never have indulged in writing ambiguous law" rather sophomoric. I don't think it's always possible to write law that is complete, unambiguous, and also good policy. Nor do I think Congress is always the best equipped to do so. I don't fully trust government agencies delegated with rulemaking authority, but I have much less trust that a forum-shopped judge in the Northern District of Texas is likely to make better-informed decisions about drug safety than the FDA.

FWIW, I haven't really thought much about Loper as it relates to AI, tech, and crypto specifically. The consequences of activist judges versus the likes of the DOJ, CDC, FDA, and EPA are mostly what come to mind. Maybe it's attention bias given recent SCOTUS decisions versus more limited memory of out-of-control agencies but I feel uneasy tilting the balance of power toward judicial dominance.

This is similar to the quantum suicide thought experiment:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality

Check out the Max Tegmark references in particular.

[Epistemic status: purely anecdotal]

I know people who work in the design and construction of data centers and have heard that some popular data center cities aren't approving nearly as many data centers due to power grid concerns. Apparently, some of the newer data center projects are being designed to include net new power generation to support the data center.

For less anecdotal information, I found this useful: https://sprottetfs.com/insights/sprott-energy-transition-materials-monthly-ais-critical-impact-on-electricity-and-energy-demand/