That opening has a strong 'omg what the fuck happened there, and why are you still friends with these people if it is that bad' vibes.

Lots of ex Maplers I've talked to are variously angry, some (newly) traumatized, confused, etc., but the vibe has generally been "gosh it's fucking complicated

Lot of people told me they were mad, but I got the vibe it was complicated. lol what...

The product of monasteries is saints, at least in small quantities.

Wrong, it is beer.

I haven't seen anti-safetyist arguments that actually address the technical claims made by Eliezer etc.

I agree with him there. But hard to make arguments against something which doesn't exist. ;)

it will take some very unusual kind of virtue and skill

Love how we went from 'you need to learn rationality, and be aware of your biasses' to you need to have virtue. And ignore the screaming in the backgrounds, that is just the academics who studied ethics doing their normal thing again.

Anyway the rest gets pretty dark pretty quickly, and I just see red flags (for people who believe in data this devolves very quickly in just going 'people are prob better off due to this, the new trauma doesn't count because of preexisting conditions, consent and trauma always happening'). And this was the article they wrote not wanting to harm the project.

Wait one more remark:

Furthermore I think that probably with the exception of the one actual AI researcher there, people at Maple basically don't understand what AI is

Hahahaha, perfect.

It also reminds me of the interview with Metz where they got mad Metz used religious terms. (you know, last week).