I get a ‘comment not found’ response to your link.

I think you should speak to Naming What We Can https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/54R2Masg3C9g2GxHq/announcing-naming-what-we-can-1

Though I think these days they go by ‘CETACEANS’ (the Centre for Effectively, Transparently, Accurately, Clearly, Effectively, and Accurately Naming Stuff).

Maybe I misunderstood you.

I think AIM doesn’t constitute evidence for this. Your top hypothesis should be that they don’t think AI safety is that good of a cause area, before positing the more complicated explanation. I say this partly based on interacting with people who have worked at AIM.

Sorry, it is so confusing to refer to AIM as 'A.I.', particularly in this context...

AIM simply doesn't rate AI safety as a priority cause area. It's not any particular organisation's job to work on your favourite cause area. They are allowed to have a different prioritisation from you.

To contextualize the final point I made, it seems that in fact there is a lot of criminality among the ultra rich. https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/d8nW46LrTkCWdjiYd/rates-of-criminality-amongst-giving-pledge-signatories (No comment on how malicious it is)

@Jan-Willem 

I don't think it's productive to name just one or two of the very many biases one could bring up. I would need some reason to think this bias is more worth mentioning than other biases (such as Ben's payment to Alice and Chloe, or commenters' friendships, etc.).

Edit: I misread what you were saying. I thought you were saying 'Kat has dodged questions about whether it was true', and 'It's not clear the anecdotes are being presented as real'.

Actually, Kat said it was true.

I just mean one shouldn't end up in a situation where you're claiming nobody should do X, having just done X. That would be deeply weird of one.