4 ms·

> With threat of military intervention. I assume you are american, right? Cause that sounds pretty american. Although I suppose you might also be chinese or ru

> With threat of military intervention. I assume you are american, right? Cause that sounds pretty american. Although I suppose you might also be chinese or russian, they also like that solution a lot. Whichever of those you are, I'm sure your side is definitely the one with all the right answers, and will be a valiant and correct ruler of the world, blessing us all with your great values.

TeMPOraL 3y ago
I'm Polish. My country is the one whose highest distinction on the international level was being marked by the US for preemptive glassing, to make it more difficult for the Soviets to drive their tanks west. Which is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand anyway.
- sebastianz 3y ago
  > Which is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand anyway. It's not irrelevant. I was implying that you did not specify who is doing this military intervention that you see as a solution. What are their values, who decides the rules that the rest of the world will have to follow, with what authority, and who (and how) will the policing be done.
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    > I was implying that you did not specify who is doing this military intervention that you see as a solution. What are their values, who decides the rules that the rest of the world will have to follow, with what authority, and who (and how) will the policing be done. Like nuclear non-proliferation treaties or various international bans on bioweapons, but more so. The idea is that humanity is racing full steam ahead into an AI x-risk event, so it needs to slow down, and the only way it can slow down is through an international moratorium that's signed by most nations and treated seriously, where "seriously" includes the option of signatories[0] authorizing a military strike against a facility engaged in banned AI R&D work. In short: think of UN that works. -- [0] - Via some international council or whatever authority would be formed as part of the treaty.
    - sebastianz 3y ago
      I see. I'm perhaps leaning skeptical most of the time, but it's hard to see how an international consensus can be reached on a topic that does not have the in-your-face type danger & fear that nuclear & bioweapons do. (It's why I'm also pessimistic on other global consensus policies - like effective climate change action.) I would be happy to be wrong on both counts though.
      - kubanczyk 3y ago
        It gets me wondering whether some AGI Hiroshima scenario would be possible. Scare people's pants off, yes. Collapse, no.

TeMPOraL 3y ago

I'm Polish. My country is the one whose highest distinction on the international level was being marked by the US for preemptive glassing, to make it more difficult for the Soviets to drive their tanks west. Which is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand anyway.

sebastianz 3y ago
> Which is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand anyway. It's not irrelevant. I was implying that you did not specify who is doing this military intervention that you see as a solution. What are their values, who decides the rules that the rest of the world will have to follow, with what authority, and who (and how) will the policing be done.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  > I was implying that you did not specify who is doing this military intervention that you see as a solution. What are their values, who decides the rules that the rest of the world will have to follow, with what authority, and who (and how) will the policing be done. Like nuclear non-proliferation treaties or various international bans on bioweapons, but more so. The idea is that humanity is racing full steam ahead into an AI x-risk event, so it needs to slow down, and the only way it can slow down is through an international moratorium that's signed by most nations and treated seriously, where "seriously" includes the option of signatories[0] authorizing a military strike against a facility engaged in banned AI R&D work. In short: think of UN that works. -- [0] - Via some international council or whatever authority would be formed as part of the treaty.
  - sebastianz 3y ago
    I see. I'm perhaps leaning skeptical most of the time, but it's hard to see how an international consensus can be reached on a topic that does not have the in-your-face type danger & fear that nuclear & bioweapons do. (It's why I'm also pessimistic on other global consensus policies - like effective climate change action.) I would be happy to be wrong on both counts though.
    - kubanczyk 3y ago
      It gets me wondering whether some AGI Hiroshima scenario would be possible. Scare people's pants off, yes. Collapse, no.