A lot of people take solace in the “everyone dies” narrative. It’s painfully clear that democratic control of AI is just not going to happen. Implicitly, that leaves the choice between humanity continuing to exist as somewhere between a few million people to one singular person and humanity not continuing to exist at all. I don’t think it’s all that unreasonable to want 100% of people rather than 99.99...9% to die when the 0.000...1% is responsible for the rest of the death.
In fact, this may(at least on the subconscious level) be a kind of deterrence—a “you’re going down with me” arrangement. I do assign substantial probability to things actually playing out this way—an actor(maybe a country, maybe a single person) faced with certain death chooses to destroy the(now-barely-populated) world rather than let their killers go free.
A lot of people take solace in the “everyone dies” narrative. It’s painfully clear that democratic control of AI is just not going to happen. Implicitly, that leaves the choice between humanity continuing to exist as somewhere between a few million people to one singular person and humanity not continuing to exist at all. I don’t think it’s all that unreasonable to want 100% of people rather than 99.99...9% to die when the 0.000...1% is responsible for the rest of the death.
In fact, this may(at least on the subconscious level) be a kind of deterrence—a “you’re going down with me” arrangement. I do assign substantial probability to things actually playing out this way—an actor(maybe a country, maybe a single person) faced with certain death chooses to destroy the(now-barely-populated) world rather than let their killers go free.