It seems to me that it works more as a cop out when people accuse(d?) them of not publishing much: "We are doing research, we promise, but it is just too dangerous for the uninitiated, humanity is not ready and stuff."
I don't think I've ever seen them use it as an excuse like that. And I wouldn't expect them to, since as far as I know(!) they focus mainly on pure FAI stuff like formal verification or whatever. And I can't imagine that they would lie to claim that they have secrets that would help build an AGI but which they can't release for humanity's sake - it would make them sound silly, and possibly even make them a target (although I admit this is far-fetched).
As for basilisks, I abide by the principle that if a highly intelligent person or group of people with professional expertise in field X say "this thing related to X is dangerous to do", I will at least try to supress my "push the button" impulse. Even if I'm pretty sure that they're wrong, by my own judgement
I think the whole basilisk thing is not (entirely) because it is "dangerous" but because they don't want to be accused of extorting more fragile or gullible visitors. Think about it this way - if EY went full L Ron Hubbard, wouldn't the basilisk be one of his primary tools of cult control?
That said, I consider the whole thing pretty silly.
I'm pleased to announce friendly-artificial-intelligence, a google group intended for research-level discussion of problems in FAI and AGI, in particular for discussions that are highly technical and/or math intensive.
Some examples of possible discussion topics: naturalized induction, decision theory, tiling agents / Loebian obstacle, logical uncertainty...
I invite everyone who want to take part in FAI research to participate in the group. This obviously includes people affiliated with MIRI, FHI and CSER, people who attend MIRI workshops and participants of the southern california FAI workshop.
Please, come in and share your discoveries, ideas, thoughts, questions et cetera. See you there!