It’s just not the case that there are no fundamental disagreements , only detailed nitpicks.
A lukewarmer who believes in , say, a 30% chance of dystopia just isn’t on the same.page as an extremist who believes in 98% certain doom. They are not going to support nuking data centers.
There is a common pattern of trying to bracket moderates with extremists. The anti immigrationist who wants 10% less immigration for economic reasons is likely to.find themselves bracketed with the anti immigrationist who wants 100% less for racial reasons, and so on. The thing is, it’s actually an anti pattern: it’s a bad thing we need less of.
(I honestly don’t know whether the argument here is “if you are a doomer, you should emphasise broad agreement over minor differences, if you are not, that’s fine” or “if you are a sceptic you should be, it’s irrational to be anything but a doomer”).
A lukewarmer who believes in , say, a 30% chance of dystopia just isn’t on the same.page as an extremist who believes in 98% certain doom. They are not going to support nuking data centers.
Eliezer doesn’t support nuking data centers, either. He supports an international treaty that, like all serious international treaties, is backed by a credible threat of violence.
(I suppose someone with a 98% P(doom) might hypothetically support unconditionally nuking data centers, but that is not Eliezer’s actual position. I assume it’s not the position of anyone at MIRI but I can only speak for Eliezer because he’s written a lot about this publicly.)
It’s not only a feint. You don’t want to go to war, and you hope that the treaty will prevent war from happening, but you are prepared to go to war if the treaty is violated. This is the standard way treaties work.
War is not the only potential response. I don’t know why this is being framed as normal when a normal treaty would have something like sanctions as a response.
It’s just not the case that there are no fundamental disagreements , only detailed nitpicks.
A lukewarmer who believes in , say, a 30% chance of dystopia just isn’t on the same.page as an extremist who believes in 98% certain doom. They are not going to support nuking data centers.
There is a common pattern of trying to bracket moderates with extremists. The anti immigrationist who wants 10% less immigration for economic reasons is likely to.find themselves bracketed with the anti immigrationist who wants 100% less for racial reasons, and so on. The thing is, it’s actually an anti pattern: it’s a bad thing we need less of.
(I honestly don’t know whether the argument here is “if you are a doomer, you should emphasise broad agreement over minor differences, if you are not, that’s fine” or “if you are a sceptic you should be, it’s irrational to be anything but a doomer”).
Eliezer doesn’t support nuking data centers, either. He supports an international treaty that, like all serious international treaties, is backed by a credible threat of violence.
(I suppose someone with a 98% P(doom) might hypothetically support unconditionally nuking data centers, but that is not Eliezer’s actual position. I assume it’s not the position of anyone at MIRI but I can only speak for Eliezer because he’s written a lot about this publicly.)
Hmm, well, that creates a paradox, because saying it ’s only a feint makes it less credible.
It’s not only a feint. You don’t want to go to war, and you hope that the treaty will prevent war from happening, but you are prepared to go to war if the treaty is violated. This is the standard way treaties work.
There are many treaties and many times treaties are violated for various reasons. Waging a war because a treaty gets violated is not the standard way.
War is not the only potential response. I don’t know why this is being framed as normal when a normal treaty would have something like sanctions as a response.