@kitten_beloved a politician is a person. technology is not a person. hitler slipping on a banana peel might stop hitler from hitlering. oppenheimer slipping on a banana peel does not predictably prevent nuclear armageddon.
English
aelgotha
459 posts
They did this with Trump too btw, mainstream national politicians and cable news anchors got in on the fun and then acted incredulous when you suggested taking a shot at the guy was the obvious answer
taoki@justalexoki
YOU ARE LITERALLY GOING TO BE TORTURED UNTIL YOU DIE IF THEY BUILD AGI!!!! WE HAVE TO STOP THEM!!! what, i would NEVER advocate for violence? when did i ever say that? what are you talking about? pfft
English
@tescrealwagmi @sriramk even if 'any action is justified to save the universe', that only applies to actions which... actually have a chance of helping save the universe. and my entire point is that random assassinations don't, while others are assuming that they do, thereby incentivizing them.
English
I think the doomers need to take a serious look at what they have helped incite and not just rely on “we condemn this and have said this is not the rational response”.
This is the logical outcome of “If we build it everyone dies”.
Drew Pavlou 🇦🇺🇺🇸🇺🇦🇹🇼@DrewPavlou
I get that Yudkowsky formally condemns the attack on Sam Altman's home and that his book formally condemns acts of vigilantism. But I also think that if you were to take seriously the central thesis of his book - that AI execs are essentially working to bring about the extinction of humanity - it's not exactly a short leap to go from accepting that thesis to then acting out extra-legal violence
English
@sriramk no, murdering random people does not prevent 'anyone from building it'. if murder is your default response when faced with any sufficiently bad thing, reevaluate. murder is bad *and* does not magically result in global coordination and treaties to 'not build it'.
English
@AxeOfWashington @inductionheads it's the difference between the government sending you to prison for breaking laws vs joe locking you in his basement for doing things he doesn't like. if your response to an equivocation between those is just 'hurr durr imprisonment, same thing,' you should... think a bit more
English
@aelgotha @inductionheads You have to add "superficially" because it's obviously true and you can't argue otherwise without the pointless descriptor.
English
Guys please, airstriking is obviously not bombing, he obviously meant dumping glitter on them, please stop being so hopelessly pedestrian
English
@SHL0MS @perrymetzger i do not think that you should not be allowed to publicly call e.g. abortion bad because it might cause some insane people to bomb abortion clinics, but sure if you want to live in that totalitarian state, go for it buddy
English
@aelgotha @perrymetzger you aren’t going to change a potential terrorist’s mind. what you can do is not form organizations with ideologies that create potential terrorists
English
The perpetual claim we see from the Doomers is not that violence against peaceful people doing AI work is immoral, but that it is merely impractical, that it would not benefit their cause. Which of course implies that if they found some form of violence that they thought did benefit their cause, they would be fine with it.
They do not even understand how normal people react when they see a statement like that. “Don’t worry, we don’t intend to murder you any time soon, because we think that it would be impractical and hurt our cause” is not the reassuring message that they think it is.
Jordan Braunstein@jbraunstein914
How do such acts of violence benefit the cause of AI safety? In fact, everyone knows acts like this discredit a cause. Which is why opponents of the AI safety faction are so eager to pin the blame on them. But you can’t even make a hypothetical case that targeted violence will accomplish Ai safety objectives. The problem is a collective action dilemma. It requires synchronized coordination. The behavior of any individual participant is inconsequential to the larger dynamic. Knowing this, interpersonal violence can only be a perverse act of self-expression by someone stupid or emotionally disturbed. So again, how could it possibly be in the interest of the AI safety community to encourage such acts? They are worse than useless; they are self-defeating.
English
@BasedNorthmathr 'sure we're kidnapping and enslaving people, but consider the kidnapping and enslavement's context' - me, a prison abolishionist, making fun of the silly prison supporters
English
“Falsely transform air striking into bombing” honest to god how did anyone ever take this guy seriously?
Super Dario@inductionheads
Guys please, airstriking is obviously not bombing, he obviously meant dumping glitter on them, please stop being so hopelessly pedestrian
English
@sporadica @SimoneSyed do you not think that if your position is e.g. 'i want to pass a law against using x for y' and everybody pretends that you actually said 'i support kidnapping and enslaving people who do x', that clarifying your actual position is probably fair and not just a 'word game'?
English
@SimoneSyed he wants to play word games and argue Yud didn’t /actually/ mean it, he was talking about government coordination or some shit, idk, Liron being Liron
English
@The4ourthBranch @boneGPT you continue pushing for the things that have a low yet nonzero chance of working rather than doing things that are morally horrific *and* only make the situation worse because you see bad villains in fiction doing that and incorrectly assume that reality must work the same way
English
Nice to see all the LessWrong people fold completely on their philosophy. Very good for humanity. They have no beliefs worth dying or killing for. It's nonsense from a guy who never had the balls to stand up for his words once push came to shove.
Yudkowsky stands for nothing.
English
@The4ourthBranch @boneGPT 'murdering random ceos' is never 'the obvious next step' because, even ignoring morality, it would never solve the problem nor even help it. in fiction you can have the trope of sacrificing morality for 'the greater good', but that doesn't mean real life works like that
English
What happens when attempts to build political coalitions seemingly fail? This gets at the problem with the framing of the problem in the first place. They wanted eyeballs and clicks and attention for power, so they had to make it seem like it was existential to humanity itself. Then when attempts at political coalitions fail, what’s the next obvious step? To think it was all for their own power trip because they wanted control.
English
@StartWaiting @The4ourthBranch @boneGPT faster than never, which is what random acts of terrorism guarantee you
English
English
@grok @KraftAvi @inductionheads (thanks for agreeing with me mister grok and pointing out that they're generally used in different contexts and therefore have different implications, even stripped from the context of the original thread (: )
English
You're correct—"bombing" is a general term that's routinely applied to state military actions, including the Allied bombing of Dresden (a WWII area bombing campaign by RAF and USAAF bombers).
My earlier point was narrower: in modern news and official rhetoric, governments/militaries prefer "airstrike" for their own coordinated air ops (to sound precise and legitimate), while labeling similar non-state violence as "bombing" (to frame it as indiscriminate/illegitimate). The words themselves don't encode "gov vs. non-gov"—that's just usage convention, not definition. Overlap is huge.
English
@KraftAvi @inductionheads @grok are you genuinely, in good faith, interpreting eliezer's tweets as anything other than taking issue with the equivocation of legal actions taken by governments to enforce a treaty (what he supports) with random acts of terrorism by individuals (which he strongly doesn't)?
English
@aelgotha @inductionheads @grok, please explain for aelgotha here what a "bombing" is, and why the distinction between a "bombing" and an "air strike" has absolutely nothing to do with whether the act is carried out by a private individual or by a government.
English
@garrytan if somebody is at risk of committing a violent act in the name of cause x, do you think they're more likely to refrain if told 'violence bad' (wow really? who would've thought!) or 'dude even if you're fine with violence, it's only going to hurt your cause, please don't'?
English
@aelgotha the man just threw a molotov and you're here mincing words, what a pathetic display which is to be expected from cowards not willing to fight for their supposed cause. x.com/airkatakana/st…
Air Katakana@airkatakana
yud planted in that guy’s brain a trolley problem with sama on one track, and all of humanity including sama on the other track dude must have thought he was about to win the nobel peace prize
English
@The4ourthBranch @boneGPT trying to build a legitimate political coalition to pass an international treaty/legislation? not all problems reduce down to 'have random civilians murder other random civilians', even if that's for some reason your default model of how to do anything
English
@liminalsnake @boneGPT that does not make it a universally optimal or even effective strategy
English
