But most of the deficiencies you point out in the third column of that table is about missing and insufficient risk analysis. E.g.:

• "RSPs doesn’t argue why systems passing evals are safe".
• "the ISO standard asks the organization to define risk thresholds"
• "ISO proposes a much more comprehensive procedure than RSPs"
• "RSPs don’t seem to cover capabilities interaction as a major source of risk"
• "imply significant chances to be stolen by Russia or China (...). What are the risks downstream of that?"

If people took your proposal as a minimum bar for how thorough a risk management proposal would be, before publishing, it seems like that would interfere with labs being able to "post the work they are doing as they do it, so people can give feedback and input".

This makes me wonder: Would your concerns be mostly addressed if ARC had published a suggestion for a much more comprehensive risk management framework, and explicitly said "these are the principles that we want labs' risk-management proposals to conform to within a few years, but we encourage less-thorough risk management proposals before then, so that we can get some commitments on the table ASAP, and so that labs can iterate in public. And such less-thorough risk management proposals should prioritize covering x, y, z."

But even after that, Caroline didn’t turn on Sam yet.

This should say Constance.

That would mean that believed he had a father with the same reasons, who believed he had a father with the same reasons, who believed he had a father with the same reasons...

I.e., this would require an infinite line of forefathers. (Or at least of hypothetical, believed-in forefathers.)

If anywhere there's a break in the chain — that person would not have FDT reasons to reproduce, so neither would their son, etc.

Which makes it disanalogous from any cases we encounter in real life. And makes me more sympathetic to the FDT reasoning, since it's a stranger case where I have less strong pre-existing intuitions.

Thanks!

This is interesting — would it be easy to share the transcript of the conversation? (If it's too long for a lesswrong comment, you could e.g. copy-paste it into a google doc and link-share it.)

You might want to check out the paper and summary that explains ECL, that I linked. In particular, this section of the summary has a very brief introduction to non-causal decision theory, and motivating evidential decision theory is a significant focus in the first couple of sections of the paper.