"EA-aligned" was probably a poor choice of words, maybe "EA-influenced" would be better. I agree that e.g. the EA forum's attitude to OpenAI is strongly negative.

I think there's something epistemically off about allowing users to filter only bad AI news. The first tag doesn't have that problem, but I'd still worry about missing important info. I prefer the approach of just requesting users be vigilant against the phenomenon I described.

I don't object to folks vocalizing their outrage. I'd be skeptical of 'outrage-only' posts, but I think people expressing their outrage while describing what they are doing and wish the reader to do would be in line with what I'm requesting here.

Your post more than meets my requested criteria, thank you!

I agree with this. Where there is a tradeoff, err on the side of truthfulness.

This seems aimed at regulators; I'd be more interested in a version for orgs like the CIA or NSA. 

Both those orgs seem to have a lot more flexibility than regulators to more or less do what they want when national security is an issue, and AI could plausibly become just that kind of issue. 

So 'policy ideas for the NSA/CIA' could be at once both more ambitious and more actionable.

I did write the survey assuming AI researchers have at least been exposed to these ideas, even if they were completely unconvinced by them, as that's my personal experience of AI researchers who don't care about alignment. But if my experiences don't generalize, I agree that more explanation is necessary.

I definitely think "that's just one final safety to rely on" applies to this suggestion. I hope we do a lot more than this!

The idea here is to prepare for an emergency stop if we are lucky enough to notice things going spectacularly wrong before it's too late. I don't think there's any hamstringing of well-intentioned people implied by that!

I agree that private docs and group chats are totally fine and normal. The bit that concerns me is 'discuss how to position themselves and how to hide their more controversial views or make them seem palatable', which seems a problematic thing for leaders to be doing in private. (Just to reiterate I have zero evidence for or against this happening though.)