If you’re fighting a total war, then at some point, somewhere along the line, you should at least stab someone in the throat. If you don’t do even that much, it’s very hard for me to see it as a total war.
You described a total war as follows:
If you believe the other side is totally committed to total victory, that surrender is unacceptable, and that all interactions are zero-sum, you may conclude your side must never cooperate with them, nor tolerate much internal dissent or luxury. All resources must be devoted to growing more resources and to fighting them in every possible way.
How is writing my computer program declaring “total war” on the world? Do I believe that “the world” is totally committed to total victory over me? Do I believe that surrender to “the world” is unacceptable—well, yes, I do. Do I believe that all interactions with “the world” are zero-sum? Hell no. Do I believe that I should never cooperate with “the world”? I do that every time I shop at a supermarket. Not tolerate internal dissent or luxury—both internal dissent and luxury sound good to me, I’ll take both. All resources must be devoted to growing more resources and to fighting “the world” in every possible way? Mm… nah.
So you thus described a total war, and inveighed against it;
But then you applied the same term to the Friendly AI project, which has yet to stab a single person in the throat; and this, sir, I do not think is a fair description.
It is not a matter of indelicate language to be dealt with by substituting an appropriate euphemism. If I am to treat your words as consistently defined, then they are not, in this case, true.
If you’re fighting a total war, then at some point, somewhere along the line, you should at least stab someone in the throat. If you don’t do even that much, it’s very hard for me to see it as a total war.
You described a total war as follows:
How is writing my computer program declaring “total war” on the world? Do I believe that “the world” is totally committed to total victory over me? Do I believe that surrender to “the world” is unacceptable—well, yes, I do. Do I believe that all interactions with “the world” are zero-sum? Hell no. Do I believe that I should never cooperate with “the world”? I do that every time I shop at a supermarket. Not tolerate internal dissent or luxury—both internal dissent and luxury sound good to me, I’ll take both. All resources must be devoted to growing more resources and to fighting “the world” in every possible way? Mm… nah.
So you thus described a total war, and inveighed against it;
But then you applied the same term to the Friendly AI project, which has yet to stab a single person in the throat; and this, sir, I do not think is a fair description.
It is not a matter of indelicate language to be dealt with by substituting an appropriate euphemism. If I am to treat your words as consistently defined, then they are not, in this case, true.