Another is concern that the cure is worse than the disease. I.e. the drama and relationship damage caused by trying to expel them in the community might hurt the community more than removing them. Like there are scissor statements, there are also scissor people. 

You might be in a community where you don't think people will agree with you that they're a bad actor, even if you can establish the truth about what events occurred in the world, because there's a value disagreement between you and your community. 

Also concern about them and their well-being. Being publicly ostracized is very traumatizing and scary for most people. Particularly if they seem mentally fragile, you might fear the consequences for them or potentially for others who aren't just you if they're forced to endure a public ousting. You might fear or be averse to causing them pain. You might have sympathy for them, particularly if you think the sense in which they're a bad actor was in turn caused by something bad happening to them. 

You might fear that exposing their bad behavior will bring harm to others who are associated with them. For example, if they're part of some oppressed minority group and you fear that people will overgeneralize from their bad behavior to being mistrustful of or more prejudiced against others. 

Tone note: I really don't like people responding to other people's claims with content like "No. Bad... Bad naive consequentialism" (I'm totally fine with "Really not what I support. Strong disagree."). It reads quite strongly to me as trying to scold someone or socially punish them using social status for a claim that you disagree with; they feel continuous with some kind of frame that's like "habryka is the arbiter of the Good"  

Personally? In various complicated ways. I wasn't advocating for always attending to such things, just disputing that highly time-sensitive messages rarely come about at all. 

I agree with and really like most of this post.

There are some things your phone can tell you that are urgent, like someone changing plans at the last minute. But that is not so urgent that you couldn’t wait to pull over.

I think I experience quite a lot of things that are very time-sensitive (though they're rarely important), more time-sensitive than you indicated. E.g. my friend is at the grocery store buying some items for a dinner party we're throwing together. They ask, "Do you have flour or should I buy some? I'm on the checkout line." Or my partner is about to leave the house and asks which bottle of wine to bring as a gift to the party we're going to, and if he waits another few min, he will miss the upcoming train and be late. These things are often urgent on the scale of 1-7 min. 

In the ship (and corporations) case, this seems like a weird semantic thing where we use the word "legal person" in a way that's very different from what people colloquially mean by "person", and only affords a small fraction of the legal rights and responsibilities that human persons generally have. The other two examples seem more in between

Thanks for writing, seems like an important topic! Given that (you said) 86% of people have HSV 1 or 2 (and those who don't are probably disproportionately children, who are unlikely to read your post on LW), advice about mitigating downsides of having the viruses seems potentially more useful than advice about avoiding them (but maybe there are no good mitigations). 

I think this is false because that is only the Open Phil 501(c)(3) and Open Phil also employs lots of people at an LLC as well, but that doesn't file a 990

Even for the attorneys general, I think you could make a case that there ought to be some sort of social punishment, even if the way that they acted was in some sense normal or above-average. That could be both because we want to change the norm / incentivize better behavior in the future and for decision theory reasons (even if what they did was normal or above-average compared to how most attorneys general handle most cases, we might want it to be the case that people think that they'll be remembered badly by history if they so suboptimally in such important circumstances) 

I feel ambivalent and complicated about this. In some objective sense, I think that the Attorneys General enabled a huge theft and (I think more importantly) made humanity a lot less safe than it could have been if they had acted in a different way that was also totally within their power. So in an objective sense they enabled great harm.

On the other hand I get the sense that they did a lot more than they could have and than most people who are more knowledgeable about this kind of thing expected them to, and the negotiation seems complicated enough that it seems like they at least tried to engage on the issue (an area they were probably unfamiliar with and not well-staffed to adjudicate) in a pretty deep way. They were probably under enormous pressure. I also get the sense that Attorney General Jennings is less susceptible to pressure from companies and more concerned with the rule of law than most attorneys general. And so in a relative sense, I think that it's possible that they did a pretty good job.

I feel worse about the board members, both because I think this was much more directly their responsibility, and because I generally get the sense that they allow or even encourage a lot of egregious behavior from OpenAI in general that's contrary to OpenAI's mission. Compared to the reference class of nonprofit board members, I think they perform much more poorly than Jennings does to the reference class of attorneys general. 

Not necessarily a counterpoint to your main point, but Lightcone's headquarters is not in San Francisco. It's in Berkeley, which is a small city of its own with a very different vibe than most of San Francisco (it's greener, less dense, more suburban, fewer tall buildings, fairly walkable and cute in most parts.)