I think there is an obvious signal that could be used: a forecast of how much MIRI will like the research when asked in 5 years. (Note that I don't mean just asking MIRI now, but rather something like prediction markets or super-forecasters to predict what MIRI will say 5 years from now.)

Basically, if the forecast is above average, anyone who trusts MIRI should fund them.

Now see if you can catch sandbagging in the scratchpad!

The most important graph from the "faking alignment" paper is this one:

Also, you should care about worlds proportional to the square of their amplitude.

It's actually interesting to consider why this must be the case. Without it, I concede that maybe some sort of Quantum Anthropic Shadow could be true. I'm thinking it would lead to lots of wacky consequences.

I suppose the main point you should draw from "Anthropic Blindness" to QI is that:

1. Quantum Immortality is not a philosophical consequence of MWI, it is an empirical hypothesis with a very low prior (due to complexity).
2. Death is not special. Assuming you have never gotten a Fedora up to this point, it is consistent to assume that that "Quantum Fedoralessness" is true. That is, if you keep flipping a quantum coin that has a 50% chance of giving you a Fedora, the universe will only have you experience the path that doesn't give you the Fedora. Since you have never gotten a Fedora yet, you can't rule this hypothesis out. The silliness of this example demonstrates why we should likewise be skeptical of Quantum Immortality.

A universe with classical mechanics, except that when you die the universe gets resampled, would be anthropic angelic.

Beings who save you are also anthropic angelic. For example, the fact that you don't die while driving is because the engineers explicitly tried to minimize your chance of death. You can make inferences based on this. For example, even if you have never crashed, you can reason that during a crash you will endure less damage than other parts of the car, because the engineers wanted to save you more than they wanted to save the parts of the car.

No, the argument is that the traditional (weak) evidence for anthropic shadow is instead evidence of anthropic angel. QI is an example of anthropic angel, not anthropic shadow.

So for example, a statistically implausible number of LHC failures would be evidence for some sort of QI and also other related anthropic angel hypotheses, and they don't need to be exclusive.

The more serious problem is that quantum immortality and angel immortality eventually merges

An interesting observation, but I don't see how that is a problem with Anthropically Blind? I do not assert anywhere that QI and anthropic angel are contradictory. Rather, I give QI as an example of an anthropic angel.

"I am more likely to be born in the world where life extensions technologies are developing and alignment is easy". Simple Bayesian update does not support this.

I mean, why not?

P(Life extension is developing and alignment is easy | I will be immortal) = P(Life extension is developing and alignment is easy) * (P(I will be immortal | Life extension is developing and alignment is easy) / P(I will be immortal))

Believing QI is the same as a Bayesian update on the event "I will become immortal".

Imagine you are a prediction market trader, and a genie appears. You ask the genie "will I become immortal" and the genie answers "yes" and then disappears.

Would you buy shares on a Taiwan war happening?

If the answer is yes, the same thing should apply if a genie told you QI is true (unless the prediction market already priced QI in). No weird anthropics math necessary!