I think there's a pretty strong default that discussing the truth of claims that actually matter to the decisions people make is worthwhile on LessWrong. 

Saying, we can speak about the truth of some things but not about those that are actually really motivating for real-world decision-making seems to me like it's not good for LessWrong culture. 

I think an important point here is that GeneSmith actually wrote a post that's of high quality and interest to billionaires that people pass around. 

The mechanism that he described is not about billionaires reading random posts on the front page but about high value posts being passed around. Billionares have network that help them to get send post that are valuable to them.  

Yes, such a thing does exist: https://discord.gg/mSek4Mmz

Was there any process where you had to get this report approved by any Chinese authority or were you completely free in conducting and publishing this survey?

Do you reject utilitarianism? If so, it would make sense to be explicit about that when posting about a moral argument on a website that's predominantly utilitarian.

If you make a bet you need to be very clear about the criteria of how the bet gets decided, currently it seems like this post doesn't lay out the criteria. 

They don’t have too much to say about how to distinguish which norms we should keep and which we should get rid of; rather, they suggest eliminating coercive enforcement, which would also satisfy what they think are the root complaints of many (e.g. some radical feminists) who would prefer to get rid of gender entirely. 

Are the rules that forbid men to participate in female Olympic events "coercive enforcement"? Is kicking out men who want to join women's shelters for woman who were abused and are afraid of men "coercive enforcement"? 

If yes, getting rid of female-only Olympic events and women's shelters seems like something that feels like a high cost to general societal values. If that's what someone calls for, they should argue that position more explicitly instead of hiding it in a nice sounding phrase like "eliminating coercive enforcement".

If no, how do the categories those cases where we have reasons to give out certain privileges to people of a certain gender?

Basically, you are saying "we can do X and I hope it will do A, B and C" without any regard for the real world consequences.

A question to better understand your opinion: if all alignment community would try to realize Political Plan with all efforts they do now to align an AI directly, what do you think is the probability of success of alignment?

Will likely go down as engaging in politics is mind-killing and it's important to think clearly to achieve AI alignment. 

It's not at all clear that if you convince someone on a superficial level that they should care about AI alignment, that will result in the right actions. On the other hand, thinking on that level can be quite corrosive for your own understanding. The soldier mindset is not useful for thinking about efficient mechanisms. 

The problem is not whether a law works but whether it does what's needed. If you look at the laws that exist in our society they usually do something but at the same time they don't solve problems completely. 

Politicians are quite quick to pass a law to "do something" but that does not mean that the problem is solved effectively. The more political the debate it is, the less likely it often is that the law actually does what it is indented to do.