Message to any world leaders who arenāt willing to change their values: If you can successfully stop this from happening if you tried, then it wouldnāt work, so thereās no point in trying to stop me.
It would be comparable to voting in an election determined by peopleās opinions, not by how they voted (the equivalent of writing on a random piece of paper, āI vote like so: __ā).
I say this because in any scenario where, even assuming every world leader who has completely unwavering moral values tried really hard to stop our program AND cooperated with one another, IF such an effort would potentially be successful, then our program would fail.
To expand on that:
If your efforts make the difference between our program succeeding and failing or otherwise affecting its success, we would have a huge incentive to ensure that this program isnāt bad for you.
This is because, if [you think it would be better for [your values] to try and prevent any given facet/āpart of our program], you would logically do so, and we donāt want that, so we will make sure [You are happy with each of those facets of the program].
Basically, you donāt need to stop our program. The threat that you might try to stop our program has the same effect.
If we can help you in a way that doesnāt come at a cost to us (e.g., reschedule meetings so the time of the meetings work better for you), we will!
As an analogy, if you had the option to get rid of a country, then you donāt have to worry about them being bad for you, because they have a massive incentive to be good for you: not getting destroyed.
Hereās another analogy: Someone is making you food. You donāt have to spend thousands of dollars to ensure that the person makes good food since you can simply throw the food away if the food does not taste good, and the person making the food already has a massive incentive to make food that tastes good to you: not getting the food thrown out.
All of this goes without saying, but saying it makes it clear.
Message to any world leaders who arenāt willing to change their values: If you can successfully stop this from happening if you tried, then it wouldnāt work, so thereās no point in trying to stop me. It would be comparable to voting in an election determined by peopleās opinions, not by how they voted (the equivalent of writing on a random piece of paper, āI vote like so: __ā).
I say this because in any scenario where, even assuming every world leader who has completely unwavering moral values tried really hard to stop our program AND cooperated with one another, IF such an effort would potentially be successful, then our program would fail.
To expand on that: If your efforts make the difference between our program succeeding and failing or otherwise affecting its success, we would have a huge incentive to ensure that this program isnāt bad for you. This is because, if [you think it would be better for [your values] to try and prevent any given facet/āpart of our program], you would logically do so, and we donāt want that, so we will make sure [You are happy with each of those facets of the program].
Basically, you donāt need to stop our program. The threat that you might try to stop our program has the same effect.
If we can help you in a way that doesnāt come at a cost to us (e.g., reschedule meetings so the time of the meetings work better for you), we will!
As an analogy, if you had the option to get rid of a country, then you donāt have to worry about them being bad for you, because they have a massive incentive to be good for you: not getting destroyed.
Hereās another analogy: Someone is making you food. You donāt have to spend thousands of dollars to ensure that the person makes good food since you can simply throw the food away if the food does not taste good, and the person making the food already has a massive incentive to make food that tastes good to you: not getting the food thrown out.
All of this goes without saying, but saying it makes it clear.