Some people would rather take AI soon so as to increase the odds of their own immortality or the immortality of their family, even at the risk of destroying all of earth.
This is the imposition of unacceptable externalities you mentioned earlier! i.e. something that (at least in vague optimistic idealism land) AIFEC counters quite specifically. Those people, where they’re gambling with everyone else’s lives and the lives of their children, basically have to lose. That’s the game.
I do expect that it’s just always going to be very difficult to include fundamentalists and fanatics of various types in most kinds of wider coalition, and that won’t easily change even with the greatest of (AIFEC or otherwise) tech powers. At least, not without changing their (stated and often deeply held) preferences fairly substantially, which is both difficult and arguably immoral.
Even in those cases, my hope is that most partisans are, at least largely, partisan out of concern, fear, and loyalty, which under sufficiently healthy conditions (difficult!) aren’t incompatible with some bargains, especially of the gentle-liberal-order kind (live and let live sort of thing).
Some specific matters may be difficult to reconcile (who gets to control Jerusalem? should we launch the probably-kill-everybody-forever-but-maybe-immortalise-some-people machine today or next year?) but even there, compromises are plentiful in history and today.
This I label ‘immortality or die trying’ vibe and yes it’s not unheard of.
This is the imposition of unacceptable externalities you mentioned earlier! i.e. something that (at least in vague optimistic idealism land) AIFEC counters quite specifically. Those people, where they’re gambling with everyone else’s lives and the lives of their children, basically have to lose. That’s the game.
I do expect that it’s just always going to be very difficult to include fundamentalists and fanatics of various types in most kinds of wider coalition, and that won’t easily change even with the greatest of (AIFEC or otherwise) tech powers. At least, not without changing their (stated and often deeply held) preferences fairly substantially, which is both difficult and arguably immoral.
Even in those cases, my hope is that most partisans are, at least largely, partisan out of concern, fear, and loyalty, which under sufficiently healthy conditions (difficult!) aren’t incompatible with some bargains, especially of the gentle-liberal-order kind (live and let live sort of thing).
Some specific matters may be difficult to reconcile (who gets to control Jerusalem? should we launch the probably-kill-everybody-forever-but-maybe-immortalise-some-people machine today or next year?) but even there, compromises are plentiful in history and today.