I think supermajorities could do things like this pretty reliably, if it’s something they care a lot about. In the US, if a supermajority of people in congress want something to happen, and are incentivized to do vote their beliefs because a supermajority of voters agree, then they can probably pass a law to make it happen. The president would probably be part of the supermajority and therefore cooperative, and it might work even if they aren’t. Laws can do a lot.
Of course, it’s easy to construct supermajorities of citizens who can’t do this kind of thing, if they disproportionately include non-powerful people and don’t include powerful people. But that’s more about power being unevenly distributed between humans, and less about humans as a collective being disempowered.
Those last two words are doing a supermajority of the work!
And yes, it’s about uneven distribution of power—but that power gradient can shift towards ASI pretty quickly, which is the argument. Still, the normative concern that most humans lost control already stands.
The president would probably be part of the supermajority and therefore cooperative, and it might work even if they aren’t.
We’re seeing this fail in certain places in real time today in the US. But regardless, the assumption of correlation of preferences often fails, partly due to the power imbalances themselves.
I think supermajorities could do things like this pretty reliably, if it’s something they care a lot about. In the US, if a supermajority of people in congress want something to happen, and are incentivized to do vote their beliefs because a supermajority of voters agree, then they can probably pass a law to make it happen. The president would probably be part of the supermajority and therefore cooperative, and it might work even if they aren’t. Laws can do a lot.
Of course, it’s easy to construct supermajorities of citizens who can’t do this kind of thing, if they disproportionately include non-powerful people and don’t include powerful people. But that’s more about power being unevenly distributed between humans, and less about humans as a collective being disempowered.
Those last two words are doing a supermajority of the work!
And yes, it’s about uneven distribution of power—but that power gradient can shift towards ASI pretty quickly, which is the argument. Still, the normative concern that most humans lost control already stands.
We’re seeing this fail in certain places in real time today in the US. But regardless, the assumption of correlation of preferences often fails, partly due to the power imbalances themselves.