The ideas of Bayesian credence levels and maximum entropy priors are important epistemic tools that in particular allow you to understand that those kludgy AI tools won't get you what you want.

(Besides, even if your suggestion is feasible, somebody would have to rewrite a great deal of Eliezer's material to not present Bayesianism as fundamental.)

(It doesn't matter for the normative judgment, but I guess that's why you wrote this in parentheses.)

I don't think Eliezer misused the idea in the sequences, as Bayesian way of thinking is a very important tool that must be mastered to understand many important arguments. And I guess at this point we are arguing about the sense of "fundamental".