I interpret the main argument as: 
You cannot predict the direction of policy that would result from certain discussions/beliefs
The discussions improve the accuracy of our collective world model, which is very valuable
Therefore, we should have the discussions first and worry about policy later.

I agree that in many cases there will be unforeseen positive consequences as a result of the improved world model, but in my view, it is obviously false that we cannot make good directionally-correct predictions of this sort for many X. And the negative will clearly outweigh the positive for some large group in many cases. In that case, the question is how much you are willing to sacrifice for the collective knowledge.

If you want to highlight people who handle this well, the only interesting case is people from group A in favor of discussing X where X is presumed to lead to Y and Y negatively impacts A. Piper's X has a positive impact on her beliefs (discussing solutions to falling birth-rates as one who believes it is a problem), and Caplan's X has a positive impact on him (he is obviously high IQ), so neither of these are interesting samples. There is no reason for either of these to inherently want to avoid discussing these X. Even worse, Caplan's rejected "Y" is a clear strawman, which begs the question and actually negatively updates me on his beliefs. More realistic Ys are things like IQ-based segregation, resource allocation, reproductive policies, etc.

If I reject these Ys for ideological reasons, and the middle ground looks like what I think it looks like, I do not want to expose the middle ground.

I agree with you that people like him do a service to prediction markets: contributing a huge amount of either liquidity or information. I don't agree with you that it is clear which one he is providing, especially considering the outcome. He did also win his popular vote bet, which was hovering around, I'm not sure, ~20% most of the time? 

I think he (Theo) probably did have a true probability around 80% as well. That's what it looks like at least. I'm not sure why you would assume he should be more conservative than Kelly. I'm sure Musk is not, as one example of a competent risk-taker.

A few glaring issues here:
1) Does the question imply causation or not? It shouldn't.
2) Are these stats intended to be realistic such that I need to consider potential flaws and take a holistic view or just a toy scenario to test my numerical skills? If I believe it's the former and I'm confident X and Y are positively correlated, a 2x2 grid showing X and Y negatively correlated should of course make me question the quality of your data proportionally.
3) Is this an adversarial question such that my response may be taken out of context or otherwise misused?

The sample interviews from Veritasium did not seem to address any of these issues: 
(1) They seemed to cut out the gun question, but the skin cream question implied causation, "Did the skin cream make the rash better or worse?"
(2) One person mentioned "I Wouldn't have expected that..." which implies he thought it was real data, 
(3) the last person clearly interpreted it adversarially.

In the original study, the question was stated as "cities that enacted a ban on carrying concealed handguns were more likely to have a decrease in crime." This framing is not as bad, but still too close to implying causation in my opinion.

I do not really understand your framing of these three "dimensions". The way I see it, they form a dependency chain. If either of the first two are concentrated, they can easily cut off access during takeoff (and I would expect this). If both of the first two are diffuse, the third will necessarily also be diffuse.

How could one control AI without access to the hardware/software? What would stop one with access to the hardware/software from controlling AI?

I've updated my comment. You are correct as long as you pre-commit to a single answer beforehand, not if you are making the decision after waking up. The only reason pre-committing to heads works, though, is because it completely removes the Tuesday interview from the experiment. She will no longer be awoken on Tuesday, even if the result is tails. So, this doesn't really seem to be in the spirit of the experiment in my opinion. I suppose the same pre-commit logic holds if you say the correct response gets (1/coin-side-wake-up-count) * value per response though.

Halfer makes sense if you pre-commit to a single answer before the coin-flip, but not if you are making the decisions independently after each wake-up event. If you say heads, you have a 50% chance of surviving when asked on Monday, and a 0% chance of surviving when asked on Tuesday. If you say tails, you have a 50% chance of surviving Monday and a 100% chance of surviving Tuesday.

What would be upsetting about being called "she"? I don't share your intuition. Whenever I imagine being misgendered (or am misgendered, e.g., on a voice call with a stranger), I don't feel any strong emotional reaction. To the point that I generally will not correct them.

I could imagine it being very upsetting if I am misgendered by someone who should know me well enough not to misgender me, or if someone purposefully misgenders me. But the misgendering specifically is not the main offense in these two cases.

Perhaps myself and ymeskhout are less tied to our gender identity than most?

These are the remarks Zvi was referring to in the post. Also worth noting Graham's consistent choice of the word 'agreed' rather than 'chose', and Altman's failed attempt to transition to chairman/advisor to YC. It sure doesn't sound like Altman was the one making the decisions here.

You're not taking your own advice. Since your message, Ilya has publicly backed down, and Polymarket has Sam coming back as CEO at coinflip odds: Polymarket | Sam back as CEO of OpenAI?