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.)

I think chatbot addiction is a different issue. I think what people are usually pointing out when they talk about AI psychosis are phenomena where (like the post says) people become delusional, or their delusions seem to be shaped by exposure to the chatbot. My sense is that there's also a related phenomenon where people might become less mentally stable and more likely to take violent actions that they wouldn't have otherwise considered, even if they had the false beliefs that they now have, but idk if that's right

Is it related to them being really obsessive about maska relative to other groups? Are they people who are unusually obsessive about health and negative externalities that people can have on one another?