Treaties are real to the degree that they are backed up by credible threat of enforcement + deterrence for non-compliance, in the same way that ordinary national and local law is real to the degree that it is actually enforced. There are lots of laws on the books in many places that are not actually enforced consistently or at all, for various reasons, some of which are analogous to the issues with international treaties that you gesture at. And this in fact causes all sorts of problems in many cases—disorder, unfairness / injustice, degrading trust and legitimacy of the legal system and the state, etc. But it doesn’t follow that the entire legal system of any given nation is largely fiction, nor that we should stop trying to pass new laws or enforce existing ones, and it definitely doesn’t mean that we should resort to some other kind of system where the state does not have a monopoly on violence. Analogously, it would be premature and fatalistic to give up on international treaties for AGI (and it’s not clear what the alternative could possibly be—if the leaders of superpowers are not the ones ultimately deciding what to do about AGI, who is?)
Also:
I agree with Eliezer’s main thesis that individual violence against AI researchers is both morally wrong and strategically stupid. Where I disagree is with the claim that international law can prevent extinction.
“International law” is a vague term that means different things to different people; the linked post you’re criticizing doesn’t use that phrase at all (and is mostly not about the topic), and you don’t say yourself exactly what you mean by it except via example.
Treaties are real to the degree that they are backed up by credible threat of enforcement + deterrence for non-compliance, in the same way that ordinary national and local law is real to the degree that it is actually enforced. There are lots of laws on the books in many places that are not actually enforced consistently or at all, for various reasons, some of which are analogous to the issues with international treaties that you gesture at. And this in fact causes all sorts of problems in many cases—disorder, unfairness / injustice, degrading trust and legitimacy of the legal system and the state, etc. But it doesn’t follow that the entire legal system of any given nation is largely fiction, nor that we should stop trying to pass new laws or enforce existing ones, and it definitely doesn’t mean that we should resort to some other kind of system where the state does not have a monopoly on violence. Analogously, it would be premature and fatalistic to give up on international treaties for AGI (and it’s not clear what the alternative could possibly be—if the leaders of superpowers are not the ones ultimately deciding what to do about AGI, who is?)
Also:
“International law” is a vague term that means different things to different people; the linked post you’re criticizing doesn’t use that phrase at all (and is mostly not about the topic), and you don’t say yourself exactly what you mean by it except via example.