I think he said to me that he disagrees with them, on their practical utility.

My vague model of Habryka didn’t find those very helpful for thinking about this problem.

FWIW I think that much our epistemic environment is too far from the true/right path. I think Habryka is able to think for himself in public better than most, and this has involved being one of the most intellectually aggressive arguers on the internet. I am not sure that being more in touch with everyone and their feedback would be healthy. For similar reasons, I don’t tweet. I suspect I would become more insane.

I feel like they’re trying to brand more in the direction of being advisors for others’ money, but aren’t willing to go all the way? I’m not sure why, I guess they want to keep more relative power in the relationships they build.

Perhaps "7 Pathologies of Rationalists".

If you are uncertain about what I would feel comfortable doing, and what I wouldn't, feel free to ask me!

Do you mean via DM, or like via a quick take that Wei Dai has written here? Or some secret third thing?

Very similar to Peter Thiel's idea that competition is for losers.

In the last year I'd guess you've written over ten thousand words complaining about LW moderation over dozens of comments, and I don't recall you ever saying anything positive about the moderation? I recall once said that you won't leave the site over our actions (so far), which sounds like you'll bear our moderation, but is quite different from saying it's overall good.

I was interested in mediation and then spent a few hours chatting with ChatGPT to find a real example to look into, and then skimmed a book (by Holbrooke) about this example, and followed up with more q's to the language model (with regular checking of other secondary sources to confirm details).

After reading it, it increased the salience to me of the legitimacy and power of the mediator.