what do you view as the purpose of SIAI's publishing papers?

1. Grab the interest of smart people who won't be grabbed by cheaper methods. This has worked before. Also: Many smart and productive people are extremely busy, and they use "Did they bother to pass peer review?" as a filter for what they choose to read. In addition, many smart people prefer to read papers over blog posts because papers are generally better organized, are more clearly written, helpfully cite related work, etc.

2. Reduce communication overhead. We don't have time to have a personal conversation with every interested smart person, and blog posts are often too disorganized and ambiguous to help. Though for this, a scholarly AI risk wiki would probably be even better. Luckily, as I say in that post, there isn't much additional cost involved in turning parts of papers into wiki articles, or combining wiki articles into papers.

3. Grab some prestige and credibility, because this matters to lots of the people we care about.

4. Show that we're capable of doing serious research. "Eliezer did some work with Marcello that we can never tell you about" and "We wrote some blog posts this month" don't quite show to most people that we can do research.

5. Be kinda-forced into writing more clearly, and in a way that is more thoroughly connected to the relevant empirical literatures, than we might otherwise be tempted to write.

Why not just publish them directly on the site, in (probably) a much more readable format?

As I said before, many people find papers more readable than ambiguous blog posts barely connected to the relevant literatures. Eliezer's papers aren't written in a different style than his blog posts, anyway. Also, peer review often improves the final product.

The problem with conformity in academia... is that a) it restricts the sorts of things you can say, b) restricts you, in many cases, to an awkward way of wording things, and c) it makes academia a less fertile ground for recruiting people.

Agree with (a) and somewhat with (b), but we're only writing certain things in paper form. Like I said, the vast majority of FAI work and discussion happens outside papers. I don't know what you mean by (c).

it seems... that we aren't going to have that much prestige in academia anyway, given that the main prestige mechanism is elite university affiliations, and most of us don't have those.

I don't care about something like "average prestige in academia." What I care about is some particular people thinking we have enough credibility to bother reading and engaging with. Many of the people I care about won't bother to check whether the author of an article has elite university affiliation, but will care if we bothered to write up our ideas clearly and with references to related work. The Singularity and Machine Ethics looks much less crankish than Creating Friendly AI, even though none of the authors have elite university affiliation.

Which people have come through Eliezer and Bostrom's papers?

Still gathering data, and I haven't gathered permission to share it. I think two people who wouldn't mind you knowing they came to x-risk through "Astronomical Waste" are Nick Beckstead and Jason Gaverick Matheny.

Using my own personal experiences is... very far from generalizing from a single example

Point taken.

How hard would it be to get someone to read a paper, vs. a single Sequence post of equal length, or a bunch of Sequence posts that sum to an equal length?

My intended point was that sometimes a paper has summed up the main points from something that Eliezer took 30 blog posts to write when he wrote The Sequences. But obviously you don't have to write a paper to do this, so I drop the point.

If all new areas of research are developed through in-person conversations and mailing lists, that doesn't imply that papers are a good way to do FAI research; it implies that papers are a bad way to do all those other kinds of research.

Remember: almost all FAI research is not done via papers. In my above list of reasons why SI publishes papers, I didn't even think to mention "to produce original research" (and I won't go back and add it now), though that sometimes happens.

there are some instances of academic moderation being net good rather than net bad. However, to quote of your earlier arguments, "don't generalize from one example". I'm sure that there are some well-moderated journals, just as I'm sure there are Mafia bosses who are really nice helpful guys. However, that doesn't imply that hanging out with Mafia bosses is a good idea.

If one journal is poorly moderated, then you jump to another one. Unlike Mafia bosses, a "problem" with journal moderators means "I wasted a few hours communicating with them and making revisions," not "They decided to cut off my thumbs."