Quick take: this is probably interpreting them over-charitably, but I feel like the plausibility of arguments like the one in this post makes e/acc and e/acc-adjacent arguments sound a lot less crazy.
Yes, this is nothing like e/acc arguments. e/acc don’t argue in favour of AI takeover; they refuse to even think about AI takeover. e/acc was “we need more AI for everyone now, or else the EAs will trap us all in stagnant woke dystopia indefinitely”. Now it’s “American AI must win or China will trap us in totalitarian communist dystopia indefinitely”.
Quick take: this is probably interpreting them over-charitably, but I feel like the plausibility of arguments like the one in this post makes e/acc and e/acc-adjacent arguments sound a lot less crazy.
Yes, this is nothing like e/acc arguments. e/acc don’t argue in favour of AI takeover; they refuse to even think about AI takeover. e/acc was “we need more AI for everyone now, or else the EAs will trap us all in stagnant woke dystopia indefinitely”. Now it’s “American AI must win or China will trap us in totalitarian communist dystopia indefinitely”.
I think rushing full steam ahead with AI increases human takeover risk