And when the Law refuses to act? What then? Big Tech has immense resources, more than almost any other lobby, to compromise our politics—and to sabotage any effective move to save humanity.
Is there any fundamental moral principle which makes Non-State Violence always wrong?
From Eliezer’s perspective, extinction. Hopefully, dying with some dignity. His p(doom) is pretty high.
The idea that the power balance is structured in a way where you can use non-state violence to prevent a core military priority from being fulfilled is wrong. Winning a military conflict against both the US military, the Chinese military and any other country that would protect their domestic AI development via non-state violence is a lot harder than the legislative battle.
And when the Law refuses to act? What then? Big Tech has immense resources, more than almost any other lobby, to compromise our politics—and to sabotage any effective move to save humanity.
Is there any fundamental moral principle which makes Non-State Violence always wrong?
From Eliezer’s perspective, extinction. Hopefully, dying with some dignity. His p(doom) is pretty high.
The idea that the power balance is structured in a way where you can use non-state violence to prevent a core military priority from being fulfilled is wrong. Winning a military conflict against both the US military, the Chinese military and any other country that would protect their domestic AI development via non-state violence is a lot harder than the legislative battle.