Thanks for your reply.

On whether people can benefit from reading philosophy outside of Less Wrong and AI books, we simply disagree.

Your response on misrepresenting Quinean naturalism did not reply to this part: "Quinean naturalists don't just discuss the fact that cognitive biases affect philosophers. Quinean naturalists also discuss how to do philosophy amidst the influence of cognitive biases. That very question is a major subject of your writing on Less Wrong, so I doubt you see no value in it."

As for an example of dissolving certain questions into cognitive algorithms, I'm drafting up a post on that right now. (Actually, the current post was written as a dependency for the other post I'm writing.)

On CEV and extrapolation: You seem to agree that the distinction is useful, because you've used it yourself elsewhere (you just weren't going into so much detail in the CEV paper). But that seems to undermine your point that valuable insights are not to be found in mainstream philosophy. Or, maybe that's not your claim. Maybe your claim is that all the valuable insights of mainstream philosophy happen to have already shown up on Less Wrong and in AI textbooks. Either way, I once again simply disagree.

I doubt that you picked up all the useful philosophy you have put on Less Wrong exclusively from AI books.