the more likely we are to navigate AI development in a sane way. I think if you put any weight in short timelines, the AI considerations likely dominate everything else.
I don’t think we’re particularly on track to do anything non-derpy w.r.t to AI either way, but this way of reasoning seems like somewhat naive consequentialism. In general, it’s good for good things to happen even if they are accomplished by bad people, and predicting second-order consequences is really hard.
Also, there are a lot of bad people in power, but for AI to go well, a lot of good things need to happen to allow humanity space and time to flourish in peace. Toppling (or militarily crippling) a fanatical Shia Islamist regime would be an extremely good thing; a bad outcome (which looks somewhat likely at this point) would be if Europe and the third world broadly give in to extortion and pay Iran a toll to pass through the strait. That toll would fund terror all over the world, and would signal to other would-be dictators and future AIs alike that they can successfully take whatever they want through force and threats, and half the world will just roll over and take it.
this way of reasoning seems like somewhat naive consequentialism.
Maybe? It is hard to reason well about these things given my strong emotions towards the admin.
But I do think the current administration is uniquely terrible by American standards.[1] It attracts and gives power to incompetent sycophants with no moral boundaries.
There was something Eliezer said about Bernie Sanders recently that really resonated with me recently:
[T]hank you also for consistently trying to do as seems right to you over the years, a stance that has grown on me as I have had more chance to witness its alternatives.
Having Trump as the president really just seems like it would be terrible for AGI governance because he is a terrible person. I’m sorry, I really don’t think there’s a more “precise” way to put it. Character matters. Trump doesn’t even pretend to be a kind person/is not under much pressure to appear to be nice.
(To be clear, I agree that, all else equal, it would be good for the Iranian regime to fail. Alas, all else would not be equal. While I think it would definitely be bad for your soul[2] to do things in the realm of “sabotage the American economy/military operation in order to make our president look bad,” I don’t think I’m obligated to stop my enemy when he is making a mistake either.)
Re character: I think most Americans (including myself) have been so far removed from true corruption that we have forgotten how bad it can possibly get. Even my state of Illinois, which is notable for its historical machine politics and general corruption (4 of our 11 last governors serving time + many others like Mike Madigan), has still more or less seen forward progress, because the corruption wasn’t bad enough to completely erode politics in the state.
But it CAN get that bad. We’re seeing this now with the Trump admin. I am generally left-leaning, but at this point I think I’d take an honest Republican over a corrupt Democrat—a position I did not hold previously—because corruption eats policy and utterly erodes the foundation upon which we build fair markets and strong institutions.
Toppling a fanatical Shia Islamist regime would be an extremely good thing.
I’m not convinced that it is necessary to topple it. Iran has been Shia for 5 centuries, and during those 5 centuries has attacked its neighbors very little.
Er, something pretty important happened in 1979. Also, the issue is not Shi’ism in general, “Shia Islamism” refers specifically to the flavor of political Islam instituted by the revolutionaries.
1979 can be seen as a return to traditional Iranian governmental policies after an experiment of a few decades with Western policies. Yes, the form of the current government (namely, a republic at least in principle) is more modern and Western than the form of the pre-1979 government (namely, a heriditary monarchy), but the monarch’s policies were more secular and Western than the current regime’s policies.
Islam has always been political in Iran, which has never had anything like the West’s separation between church and state except maybe to some extent during the experiment with Western policies that ended in 1979. We in the West shouldn’t attack countries just for being different from the West.
Toppling (or militarily crippling) a fanatical Shia Islamist regime would be an extremely good thing;
This seems far from certain from the perspective of anyone other than Israel. I mean, all else equal, definitely. But all else is definitely not equal. The most likely outcome even if this were to happen would be a huge increase in regional instability, which really doesn’t seem favorable to Europeans or most others in the surrounding area considering past examples.
That toll...would signal to other would-be dictators and future AIs alike that they can successfully take whatever they want through force and threats, and half the world will just roll over and take it.
But if they don’t pay the toll and support America in forcing it open, they are signaling it’s okay for hegemonic powers to aggress and start wars in any ways they deem fit. Europe has been forced into a lose-lose situation, by USA. It seems pretty clear that the only reason this is at all possible by Iran is because this war is seen by many in Europe and elsewhere as an unnecessary, illegal, and possibly harmful unilateral war of aggression.
Americans often seem blissfully unaware of how dangerous they appear to the rest of the world, and just take for granted that everyone considers them to always be the good guys, just doing good-guy things. America just took over Venezuela, now Iran, then Cuba, then Greenland and Canada. Is allowing all of this to be done unanimously by a great power without any repercussions not a dangerous signal to send? It seems to be a much stronger signal than that of the Strait, and they are to a certain degree opposing signals.
Americans often seem blissfully unaware of how dangerous they appear to the rest of the world, and just take for granted that everyone considers them to always be the good guys, just doing good-guy things.
Sam Kriss had a great recent essay making a similar point.
But if they don’t pay the toll and support America in forcing it open, they are signaling it’s okay for hegemonic powers to aggress and start wars in any ways they deem fit.
The strait is closed because Iran is pointing missiles and drones at anyone who tries to sail through it, including people engaged in commerce that has nothing to do with the US or Israel. Any explanation of causality that doesn’t center on that fact denies the agency of the Iranian regime, and allowing your people to be threatened and extorted just signals that you’re an easy target for anyone who wants to extract something from you by force.
It seems pretty clear that the only reason this is at all possible by Iran is because this war is seen by many in Europe and elsewhere as an unnecessary, illegal, and possibly harmful unilateral war of aggression.
Yes, this might be how many Europeans see it, but that doesn’t make them correct. Iran has been building up conventional weapons and working towards nuclear weapons, lobbing missiles and IEDs at civilian populations in Israel through terrorist proxies, and funding crime and terror all over the world for many years. That doesn’t make the current war strategically wise or good, but calling it a “unilateral war of aggression” is simply wrong.
Americans often seem blissfully unaware of how dangerous they appear to the rest of the world, and just take for granted that everyone considers them to always be the good guys, just doing good-guy things. America just took over Venezuela, now Iran, then Cuba, then Greenland and Canada.
Again, I agree that many Europeans might see the US that way, but so what? That doesn’t make them correct or worth listening to. Committed and principled pacifism would be one thing, but public opinion is often more incoherent and self-serving than that. IMO a lot of Western discourse and public opinion on this kind of thing is better to tune out, because so many people no longer seem capable of acknowledging levels of moral right and wrong, with everything simplified and flattened to “any external or preemptive aggression is always bad”, or polarized through their view on U.S. domestic politics.
Venezuela, Iran, and Cuba are very different from Greenland and Canada (which Trump did not actually credibly / non-jokingly threaten to take by force). And militant Shia Islamism in particular is one of the most pernicious and totalizing ideologies on the planet, far worse than Russian-flavored oligarchy, Chinese communism, generic Third Worldism, or Trumpism, which are all generally bad in various ways, but don’t have the elements of religious fanaticism that make their adherents difficult to negotiate with on reasonable terms[1].
Also, more generally, my view is that public opinion is only valuable and worth listening to as a noisy proxy for democracy, which is itself good only insofar as it is a mechanism for protecting natural rights and legitimizing and limiting state power through the principle of consent of the governed. Trump and co. are certainly not doing well on this front, but neither is Europe lately.
OK yes, Trump is an unreasonable negotiating partner, and there’s a cult of personality around him that maybe rises to the level of religious fanaticism among his remaining true believers, but no one is lining up to be martyred for him in order to get into heaven. Trump himself is deeply flawed and amoral as a person, but Trumpism as an ideology is not that different or worse than many other flavors of conservative / right-wing politics.
allowing your people to be threatened and extorted just signals that you’re an easy target for anyone who wants to extract something from you by force.
Again, this is not what they are signaling if the reason they are willing to pay the toll is because they don’t agree with the war in the first place and don’t want to support America’s part in it. Either way they handle this, they are being extorted by one side or the other.
Yes, this might be how many Europeans see it, but that doesn’t make them correct. Iran has been building up conventional weapons and working towards nuclear weapons, lobbing missiles and IEDs at civilian populations in Israel through terrorist proxies, and funding crime and terror all over the world for many years. That doesn’t make the current war strategically wise or good, but calling it a “unilateral war of aggression” is simply wrong.
Sure, it is debatable. Regardless, I was still talking more about the signal being emitted rather than what is correct or not. Regarding framing it as a “unilateral war of aggression”, The war was clearly a unilateral decision, or bilateral if you want to count Israel as a separate party, doesn’t really change the framing. And USA is 7k miles away from Iran, pretty clearly no imminent threat. Need to squint pretty hard to see how this could be framed as anything other than USA being the aggressor. I mean, why did they attack now? My understanding is because it is a time when Iran is particularly weak and vulnerable. It can be argued that that is the ‘right’ thing to do, but it would still be a war of aggression.
Overall, I just find the response of “What would the AIs think” in defense of America/Israel’s clear and consistent uni/bilateral behavior, at the disapproval of everyone else, a bit comical, as I see it as completely the opposite. If this were so necessary an act, they should have been able to discuss/agree to this, or some other solution, with their allies. That is at least how I would want the AIs to think.
I don’t think we’re particularly on track to do anything non-derpy w.r.t to AI either way, but this way of reasoning seems like somewhat naive consequentialism. In general, it’s good for good things to happen even if they are accomplished by bad people, and predicting second-order consequences is really hard.
Also, there are a lot of bad people in power, but for AI to go well, a lot of good things need to happen to allow humanity space and time to flourish in peace. Toppling (or militarily crippling) a fanatical Shia Islamist regime would be an extremely good thing; a bad outcome (which looks somewhat likely at this point) would be if Europe and the third world broadly give in to extortion and pay Iran a toll to pass through the strait. That toll would fund terror all over the world, and would signal to other would-be dictators and future AIs alike that they can successfully take whatever they want through force and threats, and half the world will just roll over and take it.
Maybe? It is hard to reason well about these things given my strong emotions towards the admin.
But I do think the current administration is uniquely terrible by American standards.[1] It attracts and gives power to incompetent sycophants with no moral boundaries.
There was something Eliezer said about Bernie Sanders recently that really resonated with me recently:
Having Trump as the president really just seems like it would be terrible for AGI governance because he is a terrible person. I’m sorry, I really don’t think there’s a more “precise” way to put it. Character matters. Trump doesn’t even pretend to be a kind person/is not under much pressure to appear to be nice.
(To be clear, I agree that, all else equal, it would be good for the Iranian regime to fail. Alas, all else would not be equal. While I think it would definitely be bad for your soul[2] to do things in the realm of “sabotage the American economy/military operation in order to make our president look bad,” I don’t think I’m obligated to stop my enemy when he is making a mistake either.)
Although even by global standards it’s quite bad.
i.e., you should not do this.
Re character: I think most Americans (including myself) have been so far removed from true corruption that we have forgotten how bad it can possibly get. Even my state of Illinois, which is notable for its historical machine politics and general corruption (4 of our 11 last governors serving time + many others like Mike Madigan), has still more or less seen forward progress, because the corruption wasn’t bad enough to completely erode politics in the state.
But it CAN get that bad. We’re seeing this now with the Trump admin. I am generally left-leaning, but at this point I think I’d take an honest Republican over a corrupt Democrat—a position I did not hold previously—because corruption eats policy and utterly erodes the foundation upon which we build fair markets and strong institutions.
I’m not convinced that it is necessary to topple it. Iran has been Shia for 5 centuries, and during those 5 centuries has attacked its neighbors very little.
Er, something pretty important happened in 1979. Also, the issue is not Shi’ism in general, “Shia Islamism” refers specifically to the flavor of political Islam instituted by the revolutionaries.
1979 can be seen as a return to traditional Iranian governmental policies after an experiment of a few decades with Western policies. Yes, the form of the current government (namely, a republic at least in principle) is more modern and Western than the form of the pre-1979 government (namely, a heriditary monarchy), but the monarch’s policies were more secular and Western than the current regime’s policies.
Islam has always been political in Iran, which has never had anything like the West’s separation between church and state except maybe to some extent during the experiment with Western policies that ended in 1979. We in the West shouldn’t attack countries just for being different from the West.
This seems far from certain from the perspective of anyone other than Israel. I mean, all else equal, definitely. But all else is definitely not equal. The most likely outcome even if this were to happen would be a huge increase in regional instability, which really doesn’t seem favorable to Europeans or most others in the surrounding area considering past examples.
But if they don’t pay the toll and support America in forcing it open, they are signaling it’s okay for hegemonic powers to aggress and start wars in any ways they deem fit. Europe has been forced into a lose-lose situation, by USA. It seems pretty clear that the only reason this is at all possible by Iran is because this war is seen by many in Europe and elsewhere as an unnecessary, illegal, and possibly harmful unilateral war of aggression.
Americans often seem blissfully unaware of how dangerous they appear to the rest of the world, and just take for granted that everyone considers them to always be the good guys, just doing good-guy things. America just took over Venezuela, now Iran, then Cuba, then Greenland and Canada. Is allowing all of this to be done unanimously by a great power without any repercussions not a dangerous signal to send? It seems to be a much stronger signal than that of the Strait, and they are to a certain degree opposing signals.
Sam Kriss had a great recent essay making a similar point.
The strait is closed because Iran is pointing missiles and drones at anyone who tries to sail through it, including people engaged in commerce that has nothing to do with the US or Israel. Any explanation of causality that doesn’t center on that fact denies the agency of the Iranian regime, and allowing your people to be threatened and extorted just signals that you’re an easy target for anyone who wants to extract something from you by force.
Yes, this might be how many Europeans see it, but that doesn’t make them correct. Iran has been building up conventional weapons and working towards nuclear weapons, lobbing missiles and IEDs at civilian populations in Israel through terrorist proxies, and funding crime and terror all over the world for many years. That doesn’t make the current war strategically wise or good, but calling it a “unilateral war of aggression” is simply wrong.
Again, I agree that many Europeans might see the US that way, but so what? That doesn’t make them correct or worth listening to. Committed and principled pacifism would be one thing, but public opinion is often more incoherent and self-serving than that. IMO a lot of Western discourse and public opinion on this kind of thing is better to tune out, because so many people no longer seem capable of acknowledging levels of moral right and wrong, with everything simplified and flattened to “any external or preemptive aggression is always bad”, or polarized through their view on U.S. domestic politics.
Venezuela, Iran, and Cuba are very different from Greenland and Canada (which Trump did not actually credibly / non-jokingly threaten to take by force). And militant Shia Islamism in particular is one of the most pernicious and totalizing ideologies on the planet, far worse than Russian-flavored oligarchy, Chinese communism, generic Third Worldism, or Trumpism, which are all generally bad in various ways, but don’t have the elements of religious fanaticism that make their adherents difficult to negotiate with on reasonable terms[1].
Also, more generally, my view is that public opinion is only valuable and worth listening to as a noisy proxy for democracy, which is itself good only insofar as it is a mechanism for protecting natural rights and legitimizing and limiting state power through the principle of consent of the governed. Trump and co. are certainly not doing well on this front, but neither is Europe lately.
OK yes, Trump is an unreasonable negotiating partner, and there’s a cult of personality around him that maybe rises to the level of religious fanaticism among his remaining true believers, but no one is lining up to be martyred for him in order to get into heaven. Trump himself is deeply flawed and amoral as a person, but Trumpism as an ideology is not that different or worse than many other flavors of conservative / right-wing politics.
Again, this is not what they are signaling if the reason they are willing to pay the toll is because they don’t agree with the war in the first place and don’t want to support America’s part in it. Either way they handle this, they are being extorted by one side or the other.
Sure, it is debatable. Regardless, I was still talking more about the signal being emitted rather than what is correct or not. Regarding framing it as a “unilateral war of aggression”, The war was clearly a unilateral decision, or bilateral if you want to count Israel as a separate party, doesn’t really change the framing. And USA is 7k miles away from Iran, pretty clearly no imminent threat. Need to squint pretty hard to see how this could be framed as anything other than USA being the aggressor. I mean, why did they attack now? My understanding is because it is a time when Iran is particularly weak and vulnerable. It can be argued that that is the ‘right’ thing to do, but it would still be a war of aggression.
Overall, I just find the response of “What would the AIs think” in defense of America/Israel’s clear and consistent uni/bilateral behavior, at the disapproval of everyone else, a bit comical, as I see it as completely the opposite. If this were so necessary an act, they should have been able to discuss/agree to this, or some other solution, with their allies. That is at least how I would want the AIs to think.