Yvain,

Thanks for your feedback.

So why the feeling that they're not transparent and accountable?

•As I discuss in Other Existential Risks I feel that SIAI has not (yet) provided a compelling argument for the idea that focus on AI is the most cost-effective way of reducing existential risk. Obviously I don't expect an airtight argument (as it would be impossible to offer one), but I do feel SIAI needs to say a lot more on this point. I'm encouraged that SIAI staff have informed me that more information on this point will be forthcoming in future blog posts.

•I agree with SarahC's remarks here and here on the subject of there being a "problem with connecting to the world of professional science."

•I agree with you that SIAI and its strategy aren't as crazy as they sound at first blush. I also agree that the Less Wrong sequences suffice to establish that SIAI has some people of very high intellectual caliber and that this distinguishes SIAI from most charities. At present, despite these facts I'm very skeptical of the idea that SIAI's approach to reducing existential risk is the optimal one for the reasons given in the two bullet points above.

•Regarding:

This is a noble idea, but the world being destroyed by unfriendly AI would throw a wrench into the "improve charity" plan, so this would be an excellent time to break your otherwise reasonable rule.

Here the question is just whether there's sufficient evidence that donating to SIAI has sufficiently high (carefully calibrated) expected value to warrant ignoring incentive effects associated with high focus on transparency and accountability.

I personally am very skeptical that this question has an affirmative answer. I may be wrong.