That's an interesting idea, I hadn't considered that!

Yeah, I've considered this a bunch (especially after my upvote strength on LW went up to 10, which really limits the number of people in my reference class). 

I think a whole multi-selection UI would be hard, but maybe having a user setting that you can change on your profile where you can set your upvote-strength to be any number between 1 and your current vote strength seems less convenient but much easier UI wise. It would require some kind of involved changes in the way votes are stored (since we currently have an invariant that guarantees you can recalculate any users karma from nothing but the vote table, and this would introduce a new dependency into that that would have some reasonably big performance implications).

(I care quite a bit about votes being anonymous, so will generally glomarize in basically all situations where someone asks me about my voting behavior or the voting behavior of others, sorry about that)

My guess is LW both bans and rate-limits more. 

Academia pre the mid-20th-century was a for-profit enterprise. It did not receive substantial government grants and indeed was often very tightly intertwined with the development of industry (much more so than today).

Indeed, the degree to which modern academia is operating on a grant basis and has adopted more of the trappings of the nonprofit space is one of the primary factors in my model of its modern dysfunctions.

Separately, I think the contribution of militaries to industrial and scientific development is overrated, though that also would require a whole essay to go into.

I take a very longtermist and technology-development focused view on things, so the GHD achievements weigh a lot less in my calculus. 

The vast majority of world-changing technology was developed or distributed through for-profit companies. My sense is nonprofits are also more likely to cause harm than for-profits (for reasons that would require its own essay to go into, but are related to their lack of feedback loops).

This is an extremely rich guy who isn't donating any of his money.

FWIW, I totally don't consider "donating" a necessary component of taking effective altruistic action. Most charities seem much less effective than the most effective for-profit organizations, and most of the good in the world seems achieved by for-profit companies. 

I don't have a particularly strong take on Bryan Johnson, but using "donations" as a proxy seems pretty bad to me.

Less than a year ago Deepmind and Google Brain were two separate companies (both making cutting-edge contributions to AI development). My guess is if you broke off Deepmind from Google you would now just pretty quickly get competition between Deepmind and Google Brain (and more broadly just make the situation around slowing things down a more multilateral situation).

But more concretely, anti-trust action makes all kinds of coordination harder. After an anti-trust action that destroyed billions of dollars in economic value, the ability to get people in the same room and even consider coordinating goes down a lot, since that action itself might invite further anti-trust action.

Huh, fwiw I thought this proposal would increase AI risk, since it would increase competitive dynamics (and generally make coordinating on slowing down harder). I at least didn't read this post as x-risk motivated (though I admit I was confused what it's primary motivation was).

Yeah, that's a decent link. I do think this comment is more about whether anti-recommendations for organizations should be held to a similar standard. My comment also included some criticisms of Sean personally, which I think do also make sense to treat separately, though at least I definitely intend to also try to debias my statements about individuals after my experiences with SBF in-particular on this dimension.