Please respond to the second paragraph of my previous comment, which explains why this doesn't mean what Kruel claims it means. Also note that I am not claiming it was not an important point in her talk.

Kruel has proven himself to be an unreliable narrator wherever MIRI is concerned;

He wasn't in this case, and you haven't shown it in any other case. Do you have a list to hand?

You claim he wasn't. I find three serious misrepresentations. 1) The original estimate was not about MIRI funding; 2) The original estimate was heavily disclaimed excepting a statement about "robustness"; 3) Salamon retracted it, including the robustness claim.

As for XiXi's history of acting in bad faith, you should be more than familiar with it. But if you insist, here is his characterization of his criticism:

That said, on several occasions I failed to adopt the above principles and have often mocked MIRI/LW when it would have been better to engage in more serious criticism. But I did not fail completely. See for example my primer on AI risks or the interviews that I conducted with various experts about those risks. I cannot say that MIRI/LW has been trying to rephrase the arguments of their critics in the same way that I did, or went ahead and asked experts to review their claims.

(emphasis added). Note that this comment was posted three weeks before his post on the Salamon misquote.