2. If the world takes AI risk seriously, do we need threats?
The world takes murder seriously, and part of taking murder seriously is enforcement mechanisms for its prohibition. If you break the law, the police will come to arrest you, and if you resist them they will shoot you. The (veiled) threat of violence is the foundation of basically all law, Eliezer is just unusually honest about this. If you’re a hardcore anarchist who opposes the existence of state coercion in general then fair enough you can object to this, but for everyone else… This is how states deal with serious negative externalities: by imposing restrictions on activities that cause those negative externalities, backed up by the threat of irresistible violence that is the foundation of the Leviathan.
This is a fully general argument for state violence in response to any threat. The author’s arguments are specific to the case at hand and don’t generalise to a case for absolute pacifism on the part of states.
2. If the world takes AI risk seriously, do we need threats?
The world takes murder seriously, and part of taking murder seriously is enforcement mechanisms for its prohibition. If you break the law, the police will come to arrest you, and if you resist them they will shoot you. The (veiled) threat of violence is the foundation of basically all law, Eliezer is just unusually honest about this. If you’re a hardcore anarchist who opposes the existence of state coercion in general then fair enough you can object to this, but for everyone else… This is how states deal with serious negative externalities: by imposing restrictions on activities that cause those negative externalities, backed up by the threat of irresistible violence that is the foundation of the Leviathan.
This is a fully general argument for state violence in response to any threat. The author’s arguments are specific to the case at hand and don’t generalise to a case for absolute pacifism on the part of states.