Like many Americans, I think Dario seems overly rosy about the democratic credentials of the USA and probably overly pessimistic about the CCP.
It wasn’t more than a week ago when the president of the US was blustering about invading an allied state, and I have no doubts that Donald Trump would commit worldwide atrocities if they had access to ASI.
On the other hand, it’s far from clear to me that autocracies would automatically become more repressive with ASI, it seems plausible to me that the psychological safety of being functionally unremovable could lead to a more blasse attitude towards dissonance. Who gives a shit if they can’t unthrone you anyway?
The CCP has consistently been an early adopter of any technology that allows them to solidify their control. They probably seemed unremovable even before they started tracking everyone through the cameras they set up everywhere.
With that being said, I assume that Dario waving the American flag and pointing at the evil reds across the Pacific is basically motivated reasoning.
During his discussion with Demis at Davos, he conceded that he would like to pull the brakes on AI development… were it not for the fact that We Must Win The AI Race Against China, therefore full steam ahead.
The difference to my mind is the difference between:
Personal security and security as a regime.
And 1-epsilon security and 1 security.
I think the difference between the two of these would drive a lot of dictators actions.
I don’t know as much about China, but you can see the first dynamic pretty clearly in Putin’s actions. It’d be hard to argue that it’s good for Russian national security for the Gazprom retirement plan to be “Falling into artic waters in the middle of the night”, but it makes Putin like 0.001% safer.
On the other hand, if there was literally no benefit to doing so, I think Putin would be content and optimally happy retiring to a personal solar system sized dacha.
On the other hand, it’s far from clear to me that autocracies would automatically become more repressive with ASI, it seems plausible to me that the psychological safety of being functionally unremovable could lead to a more blasse attitude towards dissonance. Who gives a shit if they can’t unthrone you anyway?
Sure, it’s not a law of nature that this would happen. But authoritarians historically seem to be repressive far in excess of what would be necessary or even optimal to retain power. One of the main “prizes” driving the attainment of such power seems to be the ability to crush one’s enemies.
And even barring that, the same concerns with an ASI apply. Is “current humans living good lives” the optimal way to satisfy the authoritarian’s desires? They wouldn’t need us at all anymore, and our existence consumes resources which could be used for other things. The only reason we wouldn’t be bulldozed is that they actually care about us.
Maybe this is controversial, but I think that dictators do care about other people, just far less than they care about their own power and safety. It’s well known, for example, that Kim Jong Un has a massive softspot for children.
On the other hand, the only reason democratic leaders don’t act like dictators is because they can’t.
I might be less concerned if the country leading ai development was a parliamentary democracy and not a presidential one, but the level of personal power held by the president of the USA will (imo) lead them to be exactly as prone to malevolent actions as someone like Xi in the CCP.
Yeah, they care about other people, but I doubt it’s all that many when it comes down to it. Would Kim Jong Un choose slightly more land for his own children over the lives of a million African children?
Like many Americans, I think Dario seems overly rosy about the democratic credentials of the USA and probably overly pessimistic about the CCP.
It wasn’t more than a week ago when the president of the US was blustering about invading an allied state, and I have no doubts that Donald Trump would commit worldwide atrocities if they had access to ASI.
On the other hand, it’s far from clear to me that autocracies would automatically become more repressive with ASI, it seems plausible to me that the psychological safety of being functionally unremovable could lead to a more blasse attitude towards dissonance. Who gives a shit if they can’t unthrone you anyway?
The CCP has consistently been an early adopter of any technology that allows them to solidify their control. They probably seemed unremovable even before they started tracking everyone through the cameras they set up everywhere.
With that being said, I assume that Dario waving the American flag and pointing at the evil reds across the Pacific is basically motivated reasoning.
During his discussion with Demis at Davos, he conceded that he would like to pull the brakes on AI development… were it not for the fact that We Must Win The AI Race Against China, therefore full steam ahead.
The difference to my mind is the difference between:
Personal security and security as a regime.
And 1-epsilon security and 1 security.
I think the difference between the two of these would drive a lot of dictators actions.
I don’t know as much about China, but you can see the first dynamic pretty clearly in Putin’s actions. It’d be hard to argue that it’s good for Russian national security for the Gazprom retirement plan to be “Falling into artic waters in the middle of the night”, but it makes Putin like 0.001% safer.
On the other hand, if there was literally no benefit to doing so, I think Putin would be content and optimally happy retiring to a personal solar system sized dacha.
Sure, it’s not a law of nature that this would happen. But authoritarians historically seem to be repressive far in excess of what would be necessary or even optimal to retain power. One of the main “prizes” driving the attainment of such power seems to be the ability to crush one’s enemies.
And even barring that, the same concerns with an ASI apply. Is “current humans living good lives” the optimal way to satisfy the authoritarian’s desires? They wouldn’t need us at all anymore, and our existence consumes resources which could be used for other things. The only reason we wouldn’t be bulldozed is that they actually care about us.
Maybe this is controversial, but I think that dictators do care about other people, just far less than they care about their own power and safety. It’s well known, for example, that Kim Jong Un has a massive softspot for children.
On the other hand, the only reason democratic leaders don’t act like dictators is because they can’t.
I might be less concerned if the country leading ai development was a parliamentary democracy and not a presidential one, but the level of personal power held by the president of the USA will (imo) lead them to be exactly as prone to malevolent actions as someone like Xi in the CCP.
Yeah, they care about other people, but I doubt it’s all that many when it comes down to it. Would Kim Jong Un choose slightly more land for his own children over the lives of a million African children?
Agreed on your other points.
I think they probably would, but admit that it’s unprovable and people have good reason to disagree.