Sure: I agree that if other actors fail to negotiate for control over an ODC before you launch it, then they would need anti-satellite capability to forcibly shut it down. But presumably there are plenty of standard sources of leverage the ODC operator, e.g. fines or sanctions on the company, or legal action against individual principals.
In fact, there’s a sense in which ODCs (unlike castles) are extremely vulnerable: you can’t afford to reinforce them, you can’t easily repair them, and (importantly) the human and political costs of destroying them seem lower than on Earth (no possibility of collateral damage in the form of human life, far less collateral damage to surrounding infrastructure, no possibility of hostage-taking). And they are more vulnerable to states and sophisticated private actors, but not mercenaries or lone actors. I agree space debris makes things less clean, though directed energy weapons might make it possible to disable the ODC without blowing it up. I feel antsy talking about such things because I think our best governance mechanisms won’t involve physical destruction, but as far as the threat of physical destruction is a backstop, then I think ODCs in space might not be so bad.
It is a position that allows the operator to circumvent quite a lot of earthly laws — including AI regulation
I’m not quite sure what the suggestion is here. National and international law is at least somewhat clear on who is liable for what, and if ODCs become a bigger issue then I expect the relevant legislation will close off really obvious loopholes. For instance, if SpaceX operates ODCs, then I would assume those ODCs would still be subject to US federal regulation since SpaceX is US-domiciled. And if they cause an international incident, for example if one of their ODCs blows up and creates a bunch of debris, then the US itself is on the hook as the parent country (per Article VI of the OST + the Liability Convention). I am somewhat worried about loopholes, for example maybe an AI company could domicile in the most lenient regulatory environment for AI. But that applies to terrestrial data centers, too.
Sure: I agree that if other actors fail to negotiate for control over an ODC before you launch it, then they would need anti-satellite capability to forcibly shut it down. But presumably there are plenty of standard sources of leverage the ODC operator, e.g. fines or sanctions on the company, or legal action against individual principals.
In fact, there’s a sense in which ODCs (unlike castles) are extremely vulnerable: you can’t afford to reinforce them, you can’t easily repair them, and (importantly) the human and political costs of destroying them seem lower than on Earth (no possibility of collateral damage in the form of human life, far less collateral damage to surrounding infrastructure, no possibility of hostage-taking). And they are more vulnerable to states and sophisticated private actors, but not mercenaries or lone actors. I agree space debris makes things less clean, though directed energy weapons might make it possible to disable the ODC without blowing it up. I feel antsy talking about such things because I think our best governance mechanisms won’t involve physical destruction, but as far as the threat of physical destruction is a backstop, then I think ODCs in space might not be so bad.
I’m not quite sure what the suggestion is here. National and international law is at least somewhat clear on who is liable for what, and if ODCs become a bigger issue then I expect the relevant legislation will close off really obvious loopholes. For instance, if SpaceX operates ODCs, then I would assume those ODCs would still be subject to US federal regulation since SpaceX is US-domiciled. And if they cause an international incident, for example if one of their ODCs blows up and creates a bunch of debris, then the US itself is on the hook as the parent country (per Article VI of the OST + the Liability Convention). I am somewhat worried about loopholes, for example maybe an AI company could domicile in the most lenient regulatory environment for AI. But that applies to terrestrial data centers, too.