Why do you think that? (I agree fwiw)

My ill-informed impression of the RAND situation was that there's a new group inside RAND thinking about AI, and its small in personnel and resources compared to RAND at large. Is that not so?

I think Rationality provided undirected support to EA during that period (sharing goodwill and labour, running events together), and received funding from EA funders, and so is not clean of the stuff listed in my comment. I think it probably overall made those things worse by supporting EA more, even if it helped the bad things somewhat less than it helped the good things.

Rationality has supported and been supported by EA a bunch. In that time, Rationality+EA has caused a bunch of harm (I’m not certain about net harm, but I do think a bunch of harm has happened: supporting scaling labs, supporting SBF, low integrity political manoeuvring (I hear)). I think Rationality should own its relationship to EA and its mixed legacy.

I believe Vassar did buy a ticket to Summer Camp, but it was refunded as he wasn't allowed into that event.

At this discount rate, you would value a civilization that lives 10,000 years in the future, which is a real choice that past humans faced, at less than a billion billion times of their civilization at the time.

What choice are you thinking of?

I am pretty confused by some of the comments here. I think "Sharing information on Ben Pace" is supposed to be about Kat's experiences and that Kat is expecting/wanting that to be obvious.