Lets back up and ask a more basic question: What, exactly, do you mean by "fascism"? What is this thing that you are "anti"? As used in modern discourse, it seems to be used more as a slur than as a word with actual semantic content, and the people I have encountered in the past who self-identify as "anti-fascist" have not come off as serious people to me. So don't use that word like we all have a shared understanding of what actual thing it refers to. I don't, and unless you define it, I question whether you do either.

I think I disagree. Admittedly I tend to use AI more for talking through ideas and editing than actual drafting, so maybe something different happens when AI is used for drafting, but to me this feels like a demand that writers tell you whether they used MS Word or Google Docs or Open Office or a type writer. Why? The use of a tool, whether an AI or a word processor, doesn't make the work any less the work of the human author, nor does it diminish the trust we should place in the claims made. The human author is still responsible for the accuracy of the claims.

The main thing I'm hearing here is a criticism of the choice to handle marketing only after strategy decisions have been made, rather than incorporating marketing in to strategy decisions. My instinct is to view that as a feature, not a bug. EAs strength is its epistemics. We figure out what is good to do based on facts and evidence, not based on how we think it will look. A marketing person is just an expert in how it will look, or how to make it look good. Seems like having them in the room when making strategy decisions would poison those decisions, not strengthen them. What am I missing?

The online format seems rather different from the in-person Inkhaven, which seems like the main difference. But in what way is literal Inkhaven not for EAs?

I'm not especially familiar with the history - I came to EA after the term "longtermism" was coined so that's just always been the vocabulary for me. But you seem to be equating an idea being chronologically old with it already being well studied and explored and the low hanging fruit having been picked. You seem to think that old -> not neglected. And that does not follow. I don't know how old the idea of longtermism is. I don't particularly care. It is certainly older than the word. But it does seem to be pretty much completely neglected outside EA, as well as important and, at least with regard to x-risks, tractable. That makes it an important EA cause area.

Why on earth would you set 2017 as a cutoff? Language changes, there is nothing wrong with a word being coined for a concept, and then applied to uses of the concept that predate the word. That is usually how it goes. So I think your exclusion of existential risk is just wrong. The various interventions for existential risks, of which there are many, are the answer to your question.

merely possible people are not people

And this, again, is just plane false, at least in the morally relevant senses of these words. 

I will admit that my initial statement was imprecise, because I was not attempting to be philosophically rigorous. You seem to be focusing in on the word "actual", which was a clumsy word choice on my part, because "actual" is not in the phrase "person affecting views". Perhaps what I should have said is that Parfit seems to think that possible people are somehow not people with moral interests.

But at the end of the day, I'm not concerned with what academic philosophers think. I'm interested in morality and persuasion, not philosophy. It may be that his practical recommendations are similar to mine, but if his rhetorical choices undermine those recommendations, as I believe they do, that does not make him a friend, much less a godfather of longermism. If he wasn't capable of thinking about the rhetorical implications of his linguistic choices, then he should not have started commenting on morality at all.

You seem to be making an implicit assumption that longtermism originated in philosophical literature, and that therefor whoever first put an idea in the philosophical literature is the originator of that idea. I call bullshit on that. These are not complicated ideas that first arose amongst philosophers. These are relatively simple ideas that I'm sure many people had thought before anyone thought to write them down. One of the things I hate most about philosophers is their tendency to claim dominion over ideas just because they wrote long and pointless tomes about them.

Lets clarify this a bit then. Suppose there is a massive nuclear exchange tomorrow, which leads in short order to the extinction of humanity. I take it both proponents and opponents of person affecting views will agree that that is bad for the people who are alive just before the nuclear detonations, and die either from those detonations or shortly after because of them. Would that also be bad for a person who counterfactually would have been conceived the day after tomorrow, or in a thousand years had there not been a nuclear exchange? I think the obviously correct answer is yes, and I think the longtermist has to answer yes, because that future person who exists in some timelines and not others is an actual person with actual interests that any ethical person must account for. My understanding is that person-affecting views say no, because they have mislabeled that future person as not an actual person. Am I misunderstanding what is meant by person-affecting views? Because if I have understood the term correctly, I have to stand by the position that it is an obviously biased term.

Put another way, it sounds like the main point of a person-affecting view is to deny that preventing a person from existing causes them harm (or maybe benefits them if their life would not have been worth living). Such a view does this by labeling such a person as somehow not a person. This is obviously wrong and biased.

Ah. I mistakenly thought that Parfit coined the term "person affecting view", which is such an obviously biased term I thought he must have been against longtermism, but I can't actually find confirmation of that so maybe I'm just wrong about the origin of the term. I would be curious if anyone knows who did coin it.