I think this post gestures at something important, but is quite confused in doing so. In particular, I agree that the concept of Schelling points is very important for understanding coordination. However, I think this post fails to distinguish between coordination towards good and coordination towards evil. The thing it calls "Schelling goodness" is often a tool for turning people against their own moral intuitions, especially in settings where people aren't able to encourage the behavior they actually want. For example, if you stopped people on the street in a dictatorship and asked what should happen to an opponent of the regime, the safe (and Schelling) answer might be "they should be executed". You might then say that you need to ask people in a setting where they feel safe to give their "true opinions". But power structures often coerce people into internalizing submission to those power structures, so it's hard to even know what their "true opinion" means. And even if you have a reliable way to get someone to think freely about what they prefer, doing so privately doesn't do much to change the Schelling answer—because the Schelling answer is anchored to public knowledge. In other words, even when individuals are able to come to the intuitively right moral answer, the application of power might cause the Schelling answer to remain stuck on something bad (and indeed, I suspect that we can think about this ability as constitutive of power). I discuss many of these dynamics in this blog post. You might hope that these dynamics change when thinking about the cosmic Schelling answer, since it's harder for distant civilizations to coerce each other. But the main reason to take the cosmic Schelling answer seriously IMO is that there are some channels for such civilizations to affect each other, and coercive interactions seem like they're probably fairly easy (e.g. simulating things with high disutility for another civ). On the meta level: I was thinking about making this comment a few days ago, after a conversation with Scott Garrabrant, but was prompted to do so by the recent announcement that SFF is revoking John Wentworth's funding. I don't know who made that call, and want to think more about it before writing publicly about it, but the intuitions in this comment play an important role in how I evaluate decisions like this.