(Eat some sauce.)

More or less, yeah. Vladimir Nesov has a similar but distinct habit.

(For what it's worth from what I can tell Mormons don't even formally make the sort of ontological commitments that are typical of (at-least-somewhat-reflective) mainstream Christianity (like, 'Jesus is my savior and I should have expected Him to show up in all logically possible worlds and all possible minds should be rounded-up-to-infinitely compelled by His story and the seemingly contingent features of Jesus [Jesus's teachings] are actually universal features of Logos and so it would be an obvious epistemic sin to disregard Him [them]') and so it's more plausible that it would be possible to go along with Mormonism in something like good faith, even if only jokingly or subtly-ironically or something.)

(I've thought about that, but the consideration that seemed more salient to me at the time was: If you send different signals than expected then those who can notice subtlety will notice a discrepancy given, say, a few hours of interaction. Yes you'll be oft-discounted (and you will have incurred this cost yourself and I don't deny that this is indeed a cost worth considering), but the people who falsely present themselves as more important than they are so vastly outweigh the people who falsely present themselves as less important than they are that causing someone to update their estimate of your importance upwards is more likely to make a (justifiable) positive impression than the alternative case which involves someone having to eventually update their estimate of your importance downwards. It's like the inverse of "don't throw pearls before swine". (I'm drunk, I apologize if I'm stating the obvious.))

I have done over a thousand Pomodoros.
Unknown to procrastination.
Nor known to overwork.
Have withstood ugh fields to get many things done.

Continuing the marksmanship theme, your proposed mechanism is part of why I watch Archer.

Let your body occupy little space in order to feel less confident and signal lack of status, thus compensating for typical but unfortunate human tendencies to think much more highly of their opinions than is actually justifiable and to prop up ubiquitous and costly signaling games. Harness the power of negative thinking!

If it can reason but isn't sentient then it maybe doesn't have "observer" moments, and maybe isn't itself morally relevant—Eliezer seems to think that way anyway. I've been trying something like, maybe messing with the non-sentient observer has a 3^^^3 utilon effect on human utility somehow, but that seems psychologically-architecturally impossible for humans in a way that might end up being fundamental. (Like, you either have to make 3^^^3 humans, which defeats the purpose of the argument, or make a single human have a 3^^^3 times better life without lengthening it, which seems impossible.) Overall I'm having a really surprising amount of difficulty thinking up an example where you have a lot of causal importance but no anthropic counter-evidence.

Anyway, does "anthropic" even really have anything to do with qualia? The way people talk about it it clearly does, but I'm not sure it even shows up in the definition—a non-sentient optimizer could totally make anthropic updates. (That said I guess Hofstadter and other strange loop functionalists would disagree.) Have I just been wrongly assuming that everyone else was including "qualia" as fundamental to anthropics?

Say the being that suffers for 3^^^3 seconds is morally relevant but not in the same observer moment reference class as humans for some reason. (IIRC putting all possible observers in the same reference class leads to bizarre conclusions...? I can't immediately re-derive why that would be.) But anyway it really seems that the magical causal juice is the important thing here, not the anthropic/experiential nature or lack thereof of the highly-causal nodes, in which case the anthropic solution isn't quite hugging the real query.

(This is sorta tangential to your comment, Nornagest, but to express the emotivation behind my original comment: sure, MBTI is a scratched up magnifying glass, not a microscope, but magnifying glasses can be pretty handy and there's no reason to scoff at them. Not that you (Nornagest) were sneering at MBTI, but a lot of folks do and it strikes me as masturbatory.)