According to OkTrends, 80% of people who claim to be bi on OkCupid only send messages to one sex.

This suggests that bisexuality is often either a hedge for gay people or a label adopted by straights to appear more sexually adventurous to their (straight) matches.

tend to date guys, because it's easier

In what way(s)?

The shortest and easiest answer is availability. When I meet a guy, I can assume he is interested in females. However, when I meet a girl, I generally assume she is interested in males.

Also, more men than women fit my "pre-reqs" which include: Interested in females, atheist (or similar), geeky, polyamorous.

Example of differences in availability- In my search parameters on OKC who comes up with a match rating of 90% of higher?

Males- 35 of them. I have never seen one looking for "just friends". 23 of them are listed as Single.

Females- 11 of them. Some looking for "just friends". Only 4 are listed as "Single". Most already have serious primaries. (long-term SO, or married) This is fine, but means that the relationship will be unlikely to move past secondary. Also, 6 are "bi", which on OKC is sometimes just used as signalling, and "bi" girls aren't necessarily bi IRL.

A longer answer is that it is easier socially, and dating guys is society's (and my own) "default". I might post another answer explaining that, if I feel like writing a decent amount.

Since it's difficult to predict the date of the invention of AGI, has SI thought about/made plans for how to work on the FAI problem for many decades, or perhaps even centuries, if necessary?

Good Update on the Spock chapter.

Making the issue seem more legitimate with the adition of the links to Hawking etc. was an especially good idea. More like this perhaps?

I do question how well people who haven't already covered these topics would fare when reading through this site though. When this is finished I'll get an irl freind to take a look and see how well they respond to it.

Of course, my concerns of making it seem more legitimately like a big deal and how easily understandable and accessible it is only really comes into play if this site is targeting people who aren't already interested in rationality or AI or the singularity.

Who is this site for? What purpose does this site have!? I really feel like these questions are important!

That there are theists around?

The most salient one would be religion.

I currently route around this by being an ethical egoist, though I admit that I still have a lot to learn when it comes to metaethics. (And I 'm not just leaving it at "I still have a lot to learn", either - I'm taking active steps to learn more, and I'm not just signalling that, and I'm not just signalling that I'm not signalling that, etc.)!

I ran across OB while being horribly akrasic on Reddit a few years ago.

My thoughts on further social business opportunities: how about rationality consulting? If SI/LessWrong can establish enough credibility as rationalists this is worth money to both non-profit organizations and for-profit businesses, as well as potentially to consumers (as with Eliezer's rationality books). Rationality consulting would probably have to be done for free at first, of course. As a secondary benefit, this would also help with the ongoing effort to measure the impact rationality training has on an individual or an organization.

On a meta level, offering a prize may be a good way generate social business ideas, since the prize would more than pay for itself if the idea is profitable enough. Resource strategy consultants for non-profit organizations do exist, and business entrepreneurs (having expertise in resource strategies from another angle) might also like the idea of a prize.

This is also a topic that SI's Volunteering program can address, which I notice in the Strategic Plan that SI plans on growing.

Luke responded that "actually, a rationality teaching/consulting business is already in the works! That's the 'Rationality Org' we plan on spinning off from Singularity Institute."

This has been discussed before, but it is still worth pointing out.

I suspect that the "social business" aspect of the SIAI is severely hurt by the organization's name. It gives off an instant nerdy vibe that turns people off in "5 seconds or less". "Artificial Intelligence" sounds like an academic pursuit from the bowels of MIT, and the "Singularity" idea is still pretty controversial. Given that SIAI competes for funding with the non-profits like UN's Global Issues, Liu Institute for Global Issues and many others, a better name might be in order. Consider for example the way the Lifeboat Foundation is named: it gets instant emotional response from most people, due to the obvious allegories.

A less-geeky name could be a cheap step toward a more mainstream support.