> And yet, even if you agree with only a quarter of what Eliezer and Nate write, you’re likely to close this book fully convinced—as I am—that governments need

> And yet, even if you agree with only a quarter of what Eliezer and Nate write, you’re likely to close this book fully convinced—as I am—that governments need to shift to a more cautious approach to AI, an approach more respectful of the civilization-changing enormity of what’s being created. For "a more cautious approach" to be effective at stopping AI progress would require an authoritarian level of computer surveillance that isn't close to politically acceptable in this country. It can only become acceptable after lots of people die. And then to be practical it probably requires ... AI to enforce. So like nuclear weapons it doesn't get banned, it gets monopolized by states. But states aren't notably more restrained at seeking power than non-states, so it still gets developed and if everyone is gonna die, we die. I respect Scott and Eliezer but even if I agree with them on the urgency of the threat I don't see a plausible way to stop it. A bit more caution would be as effective as an umbrella in an ICBM storm.