including, if it escalated to that level, military response (plausibly including nuclear).
I don’t see where Eliezer has said “plausibly including nuclear”. The point of mentioning nuclear was to highlight the scale of the risk on Eliezer’s model (‘this is bad enough that even a nuclear confrontation would be preferable’), not to predict nuclear confrontation.
You’re right. I wasn’t trying to say that Eliezer explicitly said that the response should plausibly include nuclear use – I was saying that he was saying that force should be used if needed, and it was plausible to me that he was imagining that in certain circumstances the level of force needed may be nuclear (hardened data centers?). But he has more recently explicitly stated that he was not imagining any response would include nuclear use, so I hereby retract that part of my statement.
I don’t see where Eliezer has said “plausibly including nuclear”. The point of mentioning nuclear was to highlight the scale of the risk on Eliezer’s model (‘this is bad enough that even a nuclear confrontation would be preferable’), not to predict nuclear confrontation.
You’re right. I wasn’t trying to say that Eliezer explicitly said that the response should plausibly include nuclear use – I was saying that he was saying that force should be used if needed, and it was plausible to me that he was imagining that in certain circumstances the level of force needed may be nuclear (hardened data centers?). But he has more recently explicitly stated that he was not imagining any response would include nuclear use, so I hereby retract that part of my statement.