While I am not a lawyer, it appears that this concept might indeed hold some merit. A similar strategy is used by organizations focused on civil rights, known as a “warrant canary”. Essentially, it’s a method by which a communications service provider aims to implicitly inform its users that the provider has been served with a government subpoena, despite legal prohibitions on revealing the existence of the subpoena. The idea behind it is that it there are very strong protections against compelled speech, especially against compelled untrue speech (e.g. updating the canary despite having received a subpoena).

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) seems to believe that warrant canaries are legal.

I believe Zvi was referring to FAAMG vs startups.

I read A Fire Upon the Deep a few years ago, and even back then I found it highly prescient. Now I'll take this sad event as an opportunity to read his highly acclaimed prequel A Deepness in the Sky. RIP.

Murder is just a word. ... SBF bites all the bullets, all the time, as we see throughout. Murder is bad because look at all the investments and productivity that would be lost, and the distress particular people might feel

You are saying this as if you disagreed with it. In this case, I'd like to vehemently disagree with your disagreeing with Sam.

Murder really is bad because of all the bad things that follow from it, not because there is some moral category of "murder", which is always bad. This isn't just "Sam biting all the bullets", this is basic utilitarianism 101, something that I wouldn't even call a bullet. The elegance of this argument and arguments like it is the reason people like utilitarianism, myself included.

Believing this has, in my opinion, morally good consequences. It explains why murdering a random person is bad, but very importantly does not explain why murdering a tyrant is bad, or why abortion is bad. Deontology very easily fails those tests, unless you're including a lot of moral "epicycles".

To me it feels exactly like the kind of habit we should get into.

Imagine an advanced (possibly alien) civilization, with technology far beyond ours. Do you imagine its members being pestered by bloodsucking parasites? Me neither.

The existence of mosquitoes is an indictment of humanity, as far as I'm concerned.

Is there an actually good argument for why eliminating only disease carrying mosquitoes is acceptable, rather than just wiping them all out? There is no question that even without the threat of malaria, creatures like mosquitoes, bed-bugs and horse-flies decrease the quality of life of humans and animals. Would the effects on ecosystems really be so grave that they might plausibly outweigh the enormous benefits of their extinction?

You know the way lots of people get obsessed with Nietzsche for a while? They start wearing black, becoming goth, smoking marijuana, and talking about how like “god is dead, nothing matters, man.” This never happened to me, in part because Nietzsche doesn’t really make arguments, just self-indulgent rambles.

This is objectionable is many ways. To say that one of the most influential German philosophers produced only self-indulgent rambles is a sufficiently outrageous claim that you should be required to provide an argument in its favor.

I don't even disagree entirely. I view Nietzsche as more of a skilled essay-writer than a philosopher, who tried to appeal more to aesthetics than reason alone, but reducing Nietzsche to a sort-of 19th century "influencer"-type is ridiculous.

I don't even know where to begin with the list, but here are the main reasons I suspect people, including myself, did not find Oppenheimer straightforwardly enjoyable.

• I knew what was going to happen in advance because it's historically accurate. That was probably the biggest one for me. Yes, the Bomb is going to work, it's going to be dropped, Oppenheimer will survive, etc.
• It's three hours of mostly people talking inside rooms, mostly about things I already knew about.
• The Scenes depicting his unhappy love-life, especially those including his wife, weren't interesting to me.
• It could have been more about the difficulty of making important moral judgements, but instead focused on political aspects of the project.

If we can’t get it together, perhaps we can at least find out who thinks hooking AIs up to nuclear weapons is an intriguing idea, and respond appropriately.

I unironically find it an intriguing idea, because it seems like it's a potential solution to certain games of nuclear chicken. If I can prove (or at least present a strong argument) that I've hooked up my nuclear weapons to an AI that will absolutely retaliate to certain hostile acts, that seems like a stronger deterrent than just the nukes alone.

After all, the nightmare scenario for nuclear arms strategy is "the enemy launches one nuke", because it makes all actions seem bad. Retaliating might escalate things further, not retaliating lets your enemies get away with something they shouldn't be getting away with, etc. etc. 

edit: I am of course aware that there are a myriad of things that could easily go wrong when doing this, so please do not take my comment as any kind of advocacy in favor of doing this.