Do you by any chance have link to a summary or review?

There are some summaries in the (hyper text) book, but they're probably too short to give an overview.

I could write a review, but I'd probably want to PM rather than post that.

One reason I haven't written a review is that I find the book to be: easy to read, and short enough that it probably doesn't save time, without some work.

I could try to summarize anything you have questions about after or while reading this: https://meaningness.com/control

A dialogue might be more (immediately) constructive and save time relative to trying to cover everything.

That is, however, not as short as things could be with skimming. I figured the first two sections are more pre-requisites than things which go off somewhere else.

Something rather fast, which might fail, is just reading the page: https://meaningness.com/control. Maybe it has what you're looking for there, maybe it doesn't. If you have any questions feel free to PM me.

I found that page using this search: site:meaningness.com partial control

The next two hits from that search only have a one hit for the page search for partial, at the very end of them. Beyond that hits seem to be from a repeated phrase, which is just a short summary of a section in the table of contents.

I don't have a map of what is a pre-requisite of what. But, assuming that that's handled if you read it in order, then: 'partial control' is addressed in https://meaningness.com/control. I'd guess... you can read section one (Why meaningness? and it's sub pages 4), section 2 (Stances and its subpages about 14). Then that page on control is late section 3. The preceding sub-pages don't have sub-pages, but eternalism has 3 sub-subpages of some kind or another before it).

(Things that might change: https://meaningness.com/meaningness-practice which comes late part 2 contains a subsection that is currently 100 words but could become more relevant to what you're looking for if it's updated, or pages are added after that page. That possibility is mentioned in a note from July 2014 though, so if you read this soon, I'm guessing that won't happen by then.)

Not counting: https://meaningness.com/all-dimensions-schematic-overview towards the word count or anything because it's a bunch of charts. (Which might help summarize if you have a little bit of the necessary background.)

Here's how long the first two sections are: (using https://wordcount.com, copying the text in, (adding a return a "-" and another two returns) not the table of contents on the left because it's repeated. Using the url led to a massive overcount by at least an order of magnitude, possibly some builtin recursive counting on the links or something, so I didn't use that.)

This does not include the comments (a separate page, which you don't have to read, but might be useful if you're confused or have questions, though such things might also be answered later on in the book).

12,154
Words

80,013
Characters

67,310
Characters without space

21,985
Syllables

827
Sentences

487
Paragraphs*

This one includes every "-", all 18 I added, so it's actually:

469

Paragraphs

If you figure section 3 is 75% the length of all the stuff before it, then, including the page on control, that's:

estimated numbers:

8,000
Words

60,000
Characters

50,250
Characters without space

16,500
Syllables

620.25
Sentences

351.75

Paragraphs

That comes out to an estimated 20,000 words.

I don't think it's that weak?

People will try to drive votes to get their predictions to come true and thus the vote count becomes a worse signal for quality.

I don't know if it is or not.  Human cloning seems both less useful and less harmful (just less impactful overall), so simultaneously easier to implement and not a good comparison to AGI.

The point is that the weirdness with counterfactuals breaking physical laws is the same for controlling the world through one agent (as in orthodox CDT) and for doing the same through multiple copies of an agent in concert (as in FDT). Similarly, in actuality neither one-agent intervention nor coordinated many-agent intervention breaks physical laws. So this doesn't seem relevant for comparing the two, that's what I meant by "doesn't help".

By "outside view" you seem to be referring to actuality. I don't know what you mean by "inside view". Counterfactuals are not actuality as normally presented, though to the extent they can be constructed out of data that also defines actuality, they can aspire to be found in some nonstandard semantics of actuality.

Why do you feel it would be the right decision to kill one? Who defines "right"?

I define "right" to be what I want, or, more exactly, what I would want if I knew more, thought faster and was more the person I wish I could be. This is of course mediated by considerations on ethical injunctions [? · GW], when I know that the computations my brain carries out are not the ones I would consciously endorse, and refrain from acting since I'm running on corrupted hardware. (You asked about the LCPW, so I didn't take these into account and assumed that I could know that I was being rational enough).

It's been a while since I read Thou Art Godshatter and the related posts, so maybe I'm conflating the message in there with things I took from other LW sources.

I'm  not sure what you're asking.  A lot of reality doesn't make sense to me, so that's pretty weak evidence either way.  And it does seem believable that, since there is a very wide range of consistency and dimensionality to human values that don't seem well-correlated to intelligence, the same could be true of AIs.

I think this could reasonably be true for some definitions of "intelligence", but that's mostly because I have no idea how intelligence would be formalized anyways?