armed conflict | autonomous weapons | biosecurity | global catastrophic risk | nuclear warfare | vulnerable world hypothesis
I think some subset of what people in the EA/GCR/x-risk community might have in mind when talking about terrorism might not technically fit the standard definitions of “terrorism”. In particular, an omnicidal non-state actor probably shouldn’t really count as a “terrorist” actor, since their goal isn’t to cause certain emotional and political reactions. But I don’t know what term would be more fitting—my first thought was “intentional harm by non-state actors”, but that’s both long+clunky and also too broad (that should technically cover one child hitting another child deliberately).
So it’s probably fine for this to just settle for the term “terrorism” anyway here.