What is it like as a participant?
You are forcefully shuffled into a group of 5-6 to work on a problem you don't care about.
What is it like as an organizer? What does the process of organizing look like?
You select the people you want to invite, write an abstract, that's about it.
What does it look like from AIM's perspective? From the staff's perspective?
Farmer's flies in from wherever he lives at in the East Coast, Brian Conrey arrives in his caddilac, the staff opens their binders, etc.
Is there such a thing as attending "too many" AIM workshops? Are they looked down upon because they often result in multi-author papers where it's clear one or two authors did the bulk of the work and ideation?
They are not looked down upon as far as I'm aware but the model of the workshop is surprisingly not extremely conductive to collaboration. I think the success of a workshop mostly depend on a critical mass of participants willing to share good problems. I've been to several workshops where nobody wants to share the good problems that they thought about and as a result everybody spends a week working on problems that nobody is interested in. So if you are willing to give it a serious go and propose a serious problem that you thought about then you might get something out of this workshop. This is perhaps the best use you can make of it.
I agree with much of this, including the images of Conrey and Farmer. They are practically caricatures.
On 5), the response is strictly true to some degree. But there is certainly a perception of them that is not positive. Many of the resulting papers are uninspired work on problems that no one, not even the authors, care about. That often shows all too clearly in the papers.