[MostlyStable]

It is completely coherent to both think that an extremely bad thing is coming, and yet that does not justify any particular action. "The ends don't justify the means" and literal entire religions have been built on this concept. It is not irrational or incoherent to believe that even something as serious as extinction does not justify arbitrary action.

Someone _may_ decide that it does, but it is not a necessary conclusion.

And that is completely aside from the many many (in my opinion convincing) arguments that such acts of violence would not be effective anyways.

This article is a much better (and much longer) extension of the argument and direct refutation of the OP article

https://thezvi.substack.com/p/political-violence-is-never-ac...

[hn_throwaway_99]

The older I get, the more I get the sneaking suspicion that statements like "the ends don't justify the means" and "violence is always the wrong answer" are, at best, wildly logically inconsistent in any society at any time, and at worst, designed to ensure only a very few people in power can commit violence.

An ongoing conflict has resulted in the violent deaths of literally many thousands of children. The people who enable those deaths are usually safely ensconced thousands of miles away, often living in cushy suburbs.

To emphasize as strongly as I possibly can, I am not advocating for more violence. Quite the contrary, I'm advocating for less. I just don't understand why we have all these adages to convince people that "violence is always wrong", while I'm sure some at least some of the people who say that are actively engaged in building machines designed to kill people.

Related, the Substack link you posted is titled "Political Violence is Never The Answer". But our country (and a lot of them) were literally founded on political violence. How do people square those 2 ideas?

[Aurornis]

> The older I get, the more I get the sneaking suspicion that statements like "the ends don't justify the means" and "violence is always the wrong answer" are, at best, wildly logically inconsistent in any society at any time, and at worst, designed to ensure only a very few people in power can commit violence.

My experience has been the polar opposite: The older I get, the more I've seen people come to completely incorrect conclusions that justify their decisions to harm others. This ranges from petty things like spreading gossip, to committing theft from people they don't like ("they had it coming!") to actual physical violence.

In every case, zoom out a little bit and it becomes obvious how their little self-created bubble distorted their reality until they believed that doing something wrong was actually the right and justified move.

I think you're reaching too far to try to disprove the statement in a general context. Few people are going to say "violence is always the wrong answer" in response to someone defending themselves against another person trying to murder them, for example. I think these edge cases get too much emphasis in the context of the article, though. They're used as a wedge to open up the possibility that violence can be justified some times, which turns into a wordplay game to stretch the situation to justify violence.

[hn_throwaway_99]

I think you have wildly misunderstood my point, given that your statement of "The older I get, the more I've seen people come to completely incorrect conclusions that justify their decisions to harm others" is not the polar opposite of what of I was saying - if anything, it aligns with what I was saying very well.

To rephrase, my point is that phrases like "the ends don't justify the means" and "political violence is never the answer" seem to almost always be applied in very specific contexts, completely ignoring other contexts where many people (I'd say "society at large") are completely OK with the ends justifying the means and political violence.

To use your own sentence, I've seen many people in positions of power "coming to completely incorrect conclusions that justify their decisions to harm others", e.g. why bombing children in their beds is OK.

[Aurornis]

> To rephrase, my point is that phrases like "the ends don't justify the means" and "political violence is never the answer" seem to almost always be applied in very specific contexts

That's not what you said. You were talking about society as a whole, not narrow contexts. I'll re-quote your original comment that I was responding to:

> statements like "the ends don't justify the means" and "violence is always the wrong answer" are, at best, wildly logically inconsistent in any society at any time, and at worst, designed to ensure only a very few people in power can commit violence.

I was responding to your "at best, wildly logically inconsistent in any society at any given time" claim.

[hn_throwaway_99]

Yes, society as a whole applies statements like "the ends justify the means" in wildly inconsistent ways, deeming it unacceptable in certain contexts and being completely fine with it in other contexts. I literally said in my original comment "To emphasize as strongly as I possibly can, I am not advocating for more violence. Quite the contrary, I'm advocating for less."

Beyond that, I can't help you with your reading comprehension.

[metabagel]

The point of the comment you are replying to is that it's often logically inconsistent for people to say that violence is never the answer, given the amount of violence committed by our military, law enforcement, immigration enforcement, etc. - much of which is deemed acceptable.

[bigbadfeline]

It's no inconsistent if the people who oppose violence also oppose the legal forms you enumerated.

The comment you're trying to explain is conflating different groups of people and that makes it virtually meaningless.

[pembrook]

> "Political Violence is Never The Answer". But our country (and a lot of them) were literally founded on political violence. How do people square those 2 ideas?

The is just survivorship bias. Violence sits at the root of ALL human societies. The vast majority throughout history have failed or are currently failing.

If you're on HN you're probably sitting in one of the lucky, relatively prosperous ones. Violence didn't create the prosperity, otherwise Sudan and Liberia should be the richest countries in the world.

Your relative prosperity came from your ancestors being smart enough to build frameworks to allow a society to mediate scarcity without the need for violence (common law, markets and trade, property rights, etc all enforced via a government monopoly on violence). In fact, any rich country is the result of systems of decentralized scarcity mediation without decentralized violence.

It's the lack of violence which built the relative prosperity you enjoy today. Not the other way around.

[jjk166]

> The is just survivorship bias. Violence sits at the root of ALL human societies. The vast majority throughout history have failed or are currently failing.

That only strengthens the argument that violence is sometimes the answer. It doesn't matter that it's not always the right answer, the fact is sometimes it has been, and no society has ever managed to survive without choosing it at some point or another.

Indeed, there is the argument to be made that the capability to choose violence is critical even if you never actually need to choose it. This is the basis of deterrence theory which has arguably been the cornerstone of international peace for decades and the theory of the social contract which has been the source of most people's freedoms and political power. A people who will never stand up for themselves and their friends, no matter what injustice is done upon them, invites that injustice. By simply acknowledging there exists a point beyond which you would retaliate, you discourage others from risking going past that point.

[pembrook]

Sure, you can't monopolize violence under the state (and enforce laws) without the state demonstrating its willingness to use said violence (ie. forcibly put people who violate in prison or use actual violence against them if they resist).

But OP was referring to political violence...which...how do I put this delicately...let's just say political polarization has led certain very-online members of the US populist-left, some of who hang out here for example, to try to expand the Overton Window into bolshevism. See also: Luigi fans.

My point is that the most likely outcome of violent political overthrow is not utopia. The most likely outcome is a failed state and another violent overthrow. Political violence doesn't create anything, it only destroys. And creating is the hard part.

It's like saying; "at the birth of all successful people was a person who shit their pants. So why not try shitting your pants as an adult?"

Yes, one always precedes the other. But it has no correlation to whether the person becomes successful or not.

[jjk166]

I am also talking about political violence. Specifically I'm arguing against monopolizing violence under any entity, as it leads to injustice.

[thunderfork]

>OP was referring to political violence

The dichotomy of "political" and "apolitical" violence is a false one, and one of the worst thought-terminating clichees of the 21st century. It's telling that "political violence" always seems to refer to violence that isn't the result of the processes of democratic politics.

Nobody's calling out cops shooting protestors with "less lethal" rounds or ICE officers riddling cars with bullets "political violence", for some reason.

[pembrook]

I don't disagree with the idea that violence is fundamentally morally questionable. But humans haven't evolved to the point where we can function collaboratively without the threat of it from somewhere. We're animals.

The problem with believing all violence is illegitimate (even that which has been democratically granted to the state to enforce laws), is that society breaks down and loses its legitimacy if you remove this enforcement aspect.

The alternative to a monopoly on violence centralized in a democratic government is not zero violence. The alternative is decentralized violence (anarchy). I think everyone on both sides would find this far less desirable.

[sylos]

My guy, the vast majority of political violence is committed by the right. It's not zero from the left, but it is much less.

[pembrook]

I see you've addressed none of my points and instead were triggered by my suggestion your team may have some bad people on it.

Yes, in recent times in the US right wing violence has been more prevalent. But HN is not a right wing place, it's a left filter bubble like reddit and leftist violence is a growing phenomenon in US politics. Arguing against the right wing here would be like clapping along with a giant crowd, providing zero interesting discussion. The bolshevik revival in the world's wealthiest country is far more interesting to discuss.

Also historically, we have to remember that the left's utopian socialist vision (communism) is responsible for the absolute highest body counts, including 30 million starved to death and thousands of incidents of cannibalism in just Mao's great leap forward alone.

[solaarphunk]

This is just a version of individualism vs the state. Much of western society has become increasingly confused about what violence is acceptable, let alone who should be allowed to commit violence, or have a monopoly on violence.

If we can't agree on that baseline, then its quite obvious that we'll continue to have an escalation in the types of violence that we've seen in the past few years, against the political and corporate classes in the US, with very little end in sight.

[antonvs]

> If we can't agree on that baseline

Part of the point about violence is it has little to do with societal agreement, to start with. It's what happens when that agreement breaks down. And in the end, it can change the agreement.

[zahlman]

That seems to me like a somewhat odd way to put it. From where I stand, the large majority of objection to "state monopoly on violence" comes from those who otherwise express a strongly collectivist worldview.

[solaarphunk]

Like I said, very confused.

[bloppe]

There's no room for subtlety in public discourse, but ya absolutist moral philosophies almost never stand up to scrutiny. If only things could be so simple.

I've concluded that there is no universal moral framework. You have to be comfortable with the fact that your perspective is just one of many, but that doesn't mean it's not worth fighting for, it just also means you might be subjected to others' moral frameworks if yours conflicts with theirs. Pretty unsatisfying, but I don't think an alternative conclusion exists that is sound.

[lopsotronic]

Sayings like those are aspirational rather than being realist or simulationist, and they're supposed to be aspirational.

They're stories, just like all morality. It seems when cultures get to a certain point in dissolution you have a growing population that have difficulty drawing lines between stories and reality, what stories are *for* in the first place.

Having aspirational moral systems is critical for a hyperdeveloped mostly-democratic society. It creates a gap between the Best Of Us and the Worst Of Us, and thus suggests a vector. When that aspirational system fails - whether to cynicism or brutality or both matters little - you have a societal collapse incoming or under way.

One depressing example was the progression of the United States' moral judgement on torture during the 21st century. During the worst of the Cold War years I have very few illusions that torture was occurring - extremely imaginative variants in fact. Everyone knew what happens in bush wars - we had quite a few veterans who remembered very clearly. But if in 1963 someone self-identified as a torturer, or recommended we just do it in the open, the same persion would be roundly (and justly) castigated[0].

After 9/11, the idea surfaced that yes, we're going to torture, and yes, it's ok to do it. We accept the "realism".

To see the impact of this, well, I could point to a police officer in 1992 and then to a police officer in 2022. I could also point to an Action/Adventure TV program of the 1980s - say, MacGuyver - and then point to an Action/Adventure TV Program of the 2000s - like, say, 24. Imperial Boomerang is a real thing, turns out, and now we all get to be Fallujah.

In reality, though? The answer to Scalia's "Shouldn't Jack Bauer torture a guy to save Los Angeles?" was always rhetorical[1], but if you took the bait, the correct answer was always, "No", because it destroys the aspirational vector that defines our society. Or, more practically, if for no better reason than the fact a SC justice is legally reasoning from a television show.

[0] The mixed reaction to incidents like Mai Lai show how deep this division went. Not all of America thought it was a terrible thing, but we decided we were made of better stuff. Or we wanted to be, which as it turned out, also important.

[1] The "ticking time bomb" hypothetical which is almost always presented as a stack of epistemic certainty but which is actually unfalsifiable.

[eudamoniac]

You are right, and it's like someone else said, a morality story. Of course violence is sometimes the answer, the ends do justify the means if the ends are important enough, etc. They are indoctrinated and brainwashed, in the purest sense of the word, into not even considering these ideas.

I hold it to be self evident that political violence is the only potential action that the people of North Korea could take to save themselves. Peaceful protest and voting, obviously, does not work. A massive mob rising up and stabbing dear leader with a dinner knife, at the cost of probably hundreds or thousands of themselves, might work.

To deny the above paragraph is incoherent. All governments are somewhere on the scale of justifiably being overthrown with violence. It is a valid option, and how tyrannical the government has to be before the option is justifiable is a matter of opinion. All unpretended shock and horror at the sentiment is either by the sheltered or by the afraid.

People know this subconsciously. How many stories of righteous revolution have we seen and cheered for? Shrek, Hunger Games, The Matrix, Braveheart, Dune, Star Wars; everyone knows these protagonists killing government officials are in the right. They will never make the connection, but they know it, and the intellectually honest will acknowledge it. Are we ruled by such different beasts than those characters are?

[sublinear]

> How do people square those 2 ideas?

If you're seriously trying to understand the nuance of the act itself, you should consider reading what is standard issue for law enforcement and military.

"On Killing" by Dave Grossman is a classic.

If you only want to understand and stay in the realm of politics, I don't think you'll ever find a good answer either way. There's hypocrisy in every argument for or against violence. None of that is on the minds of people "in the shit" at that time. All that stuff comes later. As you're well aware, PTSD is no joke.

What I would take away from this is to recognize all the other ways in which we are compelled to act against our own self interest under what are sold as higher moral purposes.

From that perspective, it's not that hard to see how people can treat violence as just another tool. Whether it works is a question of how much those people value life above all else. If you're surprised that's not always the case in every culture, you may want to study that first. Beliefs may devalue life for persistence against a long history of conflict. This is where you may start to find some glimmers of an answer why we in the west sometimes think violence works to get those people to "snap out of it", but it really is ultimately about control of those people or that land at the end of the day.

[zahlman]

> I just don't understand why we have all these adages to convince people that "violence is always wrong", while I'm sure some at least some of the people who say that are actively engaged in building machines designed to kill people.

First: because trusted people having such weaponry is, in expected value, believed to lead to less total violence. Second: because not all such violence is part of what you presumably have in mind when you speak of "ongoing conflict". (Of which there are many; when you speak of "an ongoing conflict" you come across as having a particular agenda, although of course I don't know which.)

> But our country (and a lot of them) were literally founded on political violence. How do people square those 2 ideas?

There is no contradiction and thus nothing to square. People are not responsible for the actions of their ancestors, nor of members of their identity groups, and especially not of the ancestors of members of their identity groups. And there is no contradiction between "the ends don't justify the means" and the ends being just.

[bigbadfeline]

> First: because trusted people having such weaponry is, in expected value, believed to lead to less total violence.

Unfortunately "trusted people" don't grow on trees... but those who do grow to the highest positions of power, with the most destructive weaponry under their control, ask for trust with stuff like: "No foreign wars", "I'll end that conflict on day one"... "after bringing prices back down".

With that said, changing the conversation from violence to trust in the ideas and people who control it, is a worthwhile endeavor.

>> The rational conclusion of doomerism is violence

That's quite backwards, violence is an irrational response to today's problems. Demonizing the discussion of those problems as "violence" can't be trusted - if the discussion stops, a rational solution will never be found.

[pksebben]

>> trust in the ideas and people who control it,

This right here is the crux of the issue. I don't even trust my own computer without fairly deep introspective tools, and what we're given for 'leadership' is 'this totally outdated and opaque system of voting for corporate shill A or corporate shill B is totally trustworthy! You obviously cannot think that you could get by without some asshat running your whole society so be thankful'.

Direct democracy, liquid democracy - whatever you pick that removes the middle man will be a marked improvement from day 1. We do not need these people deciding what's best for us. I'm not sure we ever did.

[JKCalhoun]

"But our country (and a lot of them) were literally founded on political violence. How do people square those 2 ideas?"

That's easy enough. Your presumption is that the U.S. (and other countries) would not exist were it not for political violence. We don't know if that is the case as we have only the violent timeline.

[estimator7292]

It's almost like the real world just doesn't deal in absolutes. For any absolute blanket rule you'd like to apply to the entire universe, there's a practically infinite number of exceptions and edge cases.

The real world is subjective and messy. Life is an endless series of edge cases and unique situations. The real world also has no requirement to be logically consistent or in any way rational. Every rule has exceptions, no set of rules and codes can cover every situation.

The nature of life is that your personal moral code will break down at some point. Your personal sense of right and wrong is not a universal truth, and you will be faced with situations that challenge your morals.

A wise person understands this fact, and a mature person can handle the messy reality of morals. An immature person thinks their personal moral code is universal truth and must never be questioned.

My morals tend toward Buddhist views, but I've been around long enough to learn the compromises that reality requires. Violence must always be avoided at all costs, but sometimes it is necessary. Occasionally violence is good. There are no hard rules, reality just plain and simple does not work like that.

[nradov]

During WWII, the entire Allied leadership was willing to kill millions of Axis children if that's what it took to win the war and force the enemy to surrender unconditionally. There was at least some genocidal intent. Population centers were intentionally bombed to wipe out civilian factory workers. We can argue about whether that was right or wrong but the reality is that it's probably inevitable once armed conflicts involving nation states escalate to an existential level.

“Before we’re through with them, the Japanese language will be spoken only in hell.”

-- Admiral William F. "Bull" Halsey Jr., 1941

[Synaesthesia]

It was wrong, and yes would likely be seen as genocidal in the current day, rightly so. You can't just randomly kill innocent civilians, no matter what. It didn't even meaningfully accelerate the end of the war.

[nradov]

Was it wrong though? How many US troops should we sacrifice to save one enemy civilian? In other words, if you were President Roosevelt or Truman then how do you morally justify not doing everything possible to shorten the war by even one day? How do you tell a US family that their son had to die so that the US government could avoid randomly killing innocent civilians?

It's cheap and easy to pretend to be morally superior when you're not the one forced to make hard choices based on limited information, and then deal with the consequences.

[slopinthebag]

Even more simply put, if political violence is never the answer and the institution of government is the biggest single source of political violence, what does that say about the legitimacy of the institution of government?

These trite quips act as a way to ensure only the elite ruling class has a justification for the violence they inflict.

[atmavatar]

> "The ends don't justify the means" and literal entire religions have been built on this concept.

Most religions rely on a supernatural force judging us post-mortem to balance out the rights and wrongs done during life.

The problem with this, of course, is that there's zero evidence this force exists, and relying on this force to right the wrongs in life only serves to prevent the masses from attempting to correct the wrongs themselves either directly via vigilantism or, more importantly, by replacing existing systems with ones which will serve them better.

I'm all for fixing things first via the soap box and ballot box, but sometimes the ammo box is the only resort left.

    The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
    - Thomas Jefferson

I don't believe we're at that point in the US, but I could certainly understand someone making that claim for a country like Iran.

[janalsncm]

> The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

When the British cavalry came to Virginia in 1781, Thomas Jefferson famously fled the governor’s mansion.

[esseph]

> When the British cavalry came to Virginia in 1781, Thomas Jefferson famously fled the governor’s mansion.

Yes, rather than stay and get captured by British dragoons, he left.

This became a rallying cry by the Federalists (who would love the current power structure in the US right now).

The act was investigated by the Virginia General Assembly and found that he had done nothing wrong.

(Staying would have been extremely dumb)

[janalsncm]

Your reasoning makes sense under a regime of infinite games. In other words, the goal is to continue playing the game rather than win once.

These people do not believe we are in an infinite game. They believe they have a narrow set of moves to avoid checkmate, and apparently getting rid of Sam Altman is one of them.

I will suggest another reason though: we are likely already in the light cone of continued AI development. So none of the vigilante actions are justified under their own logic. It’s probably preferable to avoid being in jail when the robot apocalypse comes.

I don’t think the death of Sam Altman or even the dissolution of OpenAI would stop the continuation of AI development. There are too many actors involved, and too many companies and nation states invested in continuing AI development. Even Eliezer Yudkowsky became president of the United States he could not stop it.

[matthewdgreen]

Eliezer Yudkowsky has gone so far as to say that it might be ok to kill most of humanity (excepting a "viable reproduction population") to stop AI. If that's not just talk, then this line reasoning only gives you a few possible modes of action. I would not be worried about the people with Molotov cocktails, but I'd be very worried about bio terrorism.

[hollerith]

>Eliezer Yudkowsky has gone so far as to say that it might be ok to kill most of humanity (excepting a "viable reproduction population") to stop AI

That doesn't sound like a non-misleading summary of anything he would say. Do you have a quote or a link?

[janalsncm]

Apparently he deleted the tweet but there are screenshots and he apologized.

https://betweendrafts.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/survivo...

https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1642229374656348161

[hollerith]

Those 2 links certainly satisfy my request. Thank you.

My summary of Eliezer's deleted tweet is that Eliezer is pointing out that even if everyone dies except for the handful of people it would take to repopulate the Earth, even that (pretty terrible) outcome would be preferable to the outcome that would almost certainly obtain if the AI enterprise continues on its present course (namely, everyone's dying, with the result that there is no hope of the human population's bouncing back). It was an attempt to get his interlocutor (who was busy worrying about whether an action is "pre-emptive" and therefore bad and worrying about "a collateral damage estimate that they then compare to achievable military gains") to step back and consider the bigger picture.

Some people do not consider the survival of the human species to be intrinsically valuable. If 99.999% of us die and the rest of us have to go through many decades of suffering just for the species to survive, those people would consider that outcome to be just as bad as everyone dying (or even slightly worse since if 100% of us were to die one day without anyone's knowing what hit them, suffering is avoided). I can see how those people might find Eliezer's deleted tweet to be alarming or bizarre.

In contrast, Eliezer cares about the human species independent of individual people (although he cares about them, too).

Also, just because I notice that outcome A is preferable to outcome B does not mean that I consider it ethical to do anything to bring about outcome B. For example, just because I notice that everyone's life would be improved if my crazy uncle Bob died tomorrow does not mean that I consider it ethical to kill him. And just because Eliezer noticed and pointed out what I just summarized does not mean that Eliezer believes that "it might be ok to kill most of humanity to stop AI" (to repeat the passage I quoted in my first comment).

[janalsncm]

The question was

> How many people are allowed to die to prevent AGI?

He didn’t say “not everyone dying is preferable to everyone dying”. The question was about acceptable consequences from preemptively stopping AGI under his assumption that AGI will lead to the extinction all humans.

Those are only the same thing under the assumptions that 1) AGI is inevitable without intervention and 2) AGI will lead to the extinction of humanity.

If he believes he is being misunderstood, his “apology” doesn’t actually deny either of the assumptions I identified, and he is widely known to believe them.

In fact, his stated reason for correcting his earlier tweet, that using nuclear weapons is taboo, is an extremely weak excuse. Given the opportunity to save humanity from AGI if that is what you believe, it would be comical to draw the line at first use of nukes.

No, I think Eliezer is trying to come to grips with the logical conclusion of his strident rhetoric.

[matthewdgreen]

You have a population of relatively wealthy, scientifically-educated people who believe that AI risk is real and existential. That if they/we don't act, humanity itself might become extinct -- and that this is an unacceptable outcome. Then you have Yudkowsky mooting the possibility that this is basically inevitable (in the absence of global coordination that seems highly unlikely), and suggesting that hyper-violent outcomes might be literally the only way our species survives.

What I am not saying: Yudkowsky intends to exterminate most of humanity.

What I am saying: this is a dangerous environment, and these kinds of statements will be seen as a call to action by a certain kind of person. TFA is literal proof of the truth of that statement. Moreover: within the community there exist trained experts who might be able to, at the cost of millions of lives, plan an attack that could (plausibly) delay AI by many years.

The danger of this argument is that someone who reveres Yudkowsky might take his arguments to the logical conclusion, and actually do something to act on them. (Although I can't prove it, I also think Yudkowsky knows this, and his decision to speak publicly should be viewed as an indicator of his preferences.) That's why these conversations are so dangerous, and why I'm not going to give Yudkowsky and his folks a lot of credit for "just having an intellectual argument." I think this is like having an intellectual discussion about a theater being on fire, while sitting in a crowded theater.

[morningsam]

Yudkowsky himself also posted a rebuttal today: https://x.com/ESYudkowsky/article/2043601524815716866

[Aurornis]

Anyone willing to read that wall of text should also read Yudkowsky's original piece on the topic: https://time.com/6266923/ai-eliezer-yudkowsky-open-letter-no...

The inflammatory conclusion of his 2023 writing was that we need to "shut it all down", escalating to bombing datacenters:

> be willing to destroy a rogue datacenter by airstrike.

Now that someone who was an open follower of his words tried to bomb Sam Altman's house and threatened to burn down their datacenters, Yudkowsky is scrambling to backtrack. The X rant tries to argue that "bombing" and "airstrike" are different and therefore you can't say he advocated for bombing anything (a distinction any rationalist would normally pounce on for its logical inconsistency, if it wasn't coming from a famous rationalist figure). He's also trying to blame his hurried writings for TIME for not being clear enough that he was only advocating for state-sponsored airstrikes, not civilian airstrikes, bombs, or attacks. Again that distinction seems like grasping at straws now that he's face to face with the realities of his extremist rhetoric.

[hollerith]

You doubt that Yudkowsky "was only advocating for state-sponsored airstrikes, not civilian airstrikes, bombs, or attacks." Let's let the reader decide.

In the article, the string "kill" occurs twice, both times describing what some future AI would do if the AI labs remain free to keep on their present course. The strings "bomb" and "attack" never occur. The strings "strike" and "destroy" occurs once each, and this quote contains both occurrences:

>Shut down all the large GPU clusters (the large computer farms where the most powerful AIs are refined). Shut down all the large training runs. Put a ceiling on how much computing power anyone is allowed to use in training an AI system, and move it downward over the coming years to compensate for more efficient training algorithms. No exceptions for governments and militaries. Make immediate multinational agreements to prevent the prohibited activities from moving elsewhere. Track all GPUs sold. If intelligence says that a country outside the agreement is building a GPU cluster, be less scared of a shooting conflict between nations than of the moratorium being violated; be willing to destroy a rogue datacenter by airstrike.

>Frame nothing as a conflict between national interests, have it clear that anyone talking of arms races is a fool. That we all live or die as one, in this, is not a policy but a fact of nature. Make it explicit in international diplomacy that preventing AI extinction scenarios is considered a priority above preventing a full nuclear exchange, and that allied nuclear countries are willing to run some risk of nuclear exchange if that’s what it takes to reduce the risk of large AI training runs.

>That’s the kind of policy change that would cause my partner and I to hold each other, and say to each other that a miracle happened, and now there’s a chance that maybe Nina will live. The sane people hearing about this for the first time and sensibly saying “maybe we should not” deserve to hear, honestly, what it would take to have that happen. And when your policy ask is that large, the only way it goes through is if policymakers realize that if they conduct business as usual, and do what’s politically easy, that means their own kids are going to die too.

[Aurornis]

> The strings "bomb" and "attack" never occur.

What do you think an "airstrike" is, then?

Trying to argue that certain strings don't occur in the page is the kind of argument that gets brought out when someone is desperate for any technicality to avoid having to concede a point.

This level of weaponized pedantry is what makes trying to debate anything with LessWrong-style rationalists so impossible: There's always another volley of gish gallop to be fired at you when you get too close to anything that goes against their accepted narratives.

[hollerith]

You were trying to get people to view what EY wrote in the time.com article as an encouragement to engage in criminal violence (as opposed to state-sponsored violence a la an airstrike on a data center) such as the firebombing of Sam's home when in actuality (both before and after the publication of the time.com article) EY has explicitly argued against doing any crimes particularly violent crimes against the AI enterprise.

Knowing that most readers do not have time to read the entire article, I brought up how many times various strings occur in the article to make it less likely in the reader's eyes that there are passages in the article other than the one passage I quoted that could possibly be interpreted as advocating criminal violence. I.e., I brought it up to explain why I quoted the 3 (contiguous) paragraphs I quoted, but not any of the other paragraphs.

In finding and selecting those 3 paragraphs, I was doing your work for you since if this were a perfectly efficient and fair debate, the burden of providing quotes to support your assertion that EY somehow condones the firebombing of Sam's home would fall on you.

[handoflixue]

I found the last paragraph a fairly great summary of a rather long post:

> How certain do you have to be that your child has terminal cancer, before you start killing puppies? 10% sure? 50% sure? 99.9%? The answer is that it doesn't matter how certain you are, killing puppies doesn't cure cancer.

[stickfigure]

The whole post should have just been this one line. He likes the sound of his own voice too much.

That said, it rings hollow. AI doomerism is rooted in Terminator style narratives, and in that narrative, the rogue Sarah Connor changes history (with a lot of violence, explosions, and special effects).

The whole scene is toxic.

[guelo]

Jeebuz that was long, I only made it through about half of it. But I think he's calling for cold war nuclear treaties style international cooperation. But I believe those mechanisms are broken and unavailable to us for two main reasons:

1. The Western world and especially the US is in the process of destroying the UN and other institutions of international law in order to protect Israel, for reasons that I have tried and failed to understand because the propaganda around it is so dense.

2. The Supreme Court made bribery of politicians legal so now we have AI investors with actual governmental power. All restraint efforts will be blocked by the federal government at minimum for these next 3 crucial years.

[doctorpangloss]

I find all of this stuff very interesting but nonetheless these two voices sound like they could never win an election and aspire not to. That is the ultimate test of the worthlessness of a policy - it's all equally worthless until it wins an election, and that's what makes it reality.

AI Doomerism versus Accelerationism are both playful fantasies, it doesn't really matter what measurements or probabilities or observations they make, because the substantive part is the policies they advocate for, and policies are meaningless - all equally worthless - until elected.

What am I saying? The best rebuttal is, get elected.

[gom_jabbar]

The interesting thing is that, for the "Father of Accelerationism" (Nick Land), AI Doomerism (doom for humans, at least for human identity) and Accelerationism (which for Land is just another label for capitalism: 'The label "accelerationism" exists because "capitalismism" would be too awkward.'[0]) are not opposed at all. And capitalism does not need to get elected.

(Land follows the above quote with "(But the reflexivity of the latter [capitalismism] is implicit.)"[0], which specifies that, for Land, more precisely, "Accelerationism is simply the self-awareness of capitalism"[1].)

[0] Nick Land (2018). Outsideness: 2013-2023, Noumena Institute, p. 71.

[1] Nick Land (2017). A Quick-and-Dirty Introduction to Accelerationism in Jacobite Magazine. Retrieved from github.com/cyborg-nomade/reignition

[doctorpangloss]

i don't know, to me they are very different things - accelerationists might be really calling for Better Capitalismism, but that's only because chatbots (the thing you are accelerating) are really good at math, and math is important for making money. if it weren't good at making money, literally nobody would care, kids would not be CS and math majors, they wouldn't care about STEM. they only care because $. But most real problems, including human problems, are not math problems.

this is a huge blind spot in the whole, rationalist and broader STEM cultural-professional community: math isn't the best way to solve problems, most problems are not math problems. SOME of school might be math problems, and it feels good to be a Doctor or a Software Developer Engineer and get your kids to practice "problem solving" - no, they are practicing math problems, not problem solving.

for example there's no math answer to whether or not a piece of land should be a parking lot, or an apartment building, or a homeless shelter, or... you can see how just saying, "whoever is the highest bidder" - that's the math answer, that's why capitalism and accelerationism are related to their core - isn't a good answer. it pretends to be the dominant way we organize land, and of course, it isn't the dominant way we organize land usage anywhere at all, even if we pretend it is. there's no "bidding" for whether a curb should be a disabled parking spot, or a bike lane, or parking, or a restaurant seating, or a parklet, or... these are aesthetic, cultural choices, with meaningless economic tradeoffs. it's not about money, so it's not about math, so math does not provide an answer. there are lots of essential human questions that cannot even be market priced, such as, what should we pay to invent new cures to congenital, terminal illness in children? parents, and a lot of people, would pay "any" price, which is a market failure - but there are a lot of useful political answers to that question. a chatbot cannot answer that question, and it would struggle to take leadership and get elected to answer that question.

mathematicians are basically never elected. so chatbots would not be. and elezier yudlowsky would not be. are you getting it? capitalism does definitely need to be elected, you might think it wins every election but it very often loses at the local level!

i am agreeing with Hashem Sarkis dean of the MIT SAP and kind of disagreeing with Bong Joon-Ho, for further reading.

[lazyasciiart]

Iran's leadership seems to be a solid rebuttal of that argument.

[xrd]

That was really fascinating. Thanks.

[classified]

So according to you the War for Independence of the US against England never happened, and it would have been completely ineffective if it had happened.

Same goes for the French Revolution. The list could go on.

I think you're overly idealistic.

[coldtea]

>It is completely coherent to both think that an extremely bad thing is coming, and yet that does not justify any particular action.

Yes, it's called "fatalism".

[Joker_vD]

> "The ends don't justify the means"

Eh. The ends do justify the means, but only inasmuch as those means actually do help to achieve the ends — astonishingly often, they don't (and rarer, but also often, actually bring you in the opposite direction from those end goals), and so remain unjustified.

[MostlyStable]

I personally believe quite strongly that some things are just immoral on their face and that I would rather fail/die without using them than succeed/live while using them. I agree that in very many cases where people do these things, they are, in the long run, counter productive, but I also believe that even if could be conclusively proven that this wasn't the case, I would still advocate against their use.

[f1shy]

Thanks.

That sentence is constantly repeated, as if it would be some kind of absolute truth. The fact is, for every end, there will be probably some means that are totally justified, and some that not.

I think the original context is: no matter how high, pure and perfect the end is, it does not meany any mean is justified.

[kgwgk]

According to Jocker_vD it’s only the means that won’t help that wouldn’t be justified.

[BurningFrog]

I agree, but it's only half of the equation.

Your solution also can't be worse than the problem it solves!

Overly clear example: Killing your noisy neighbors actually achieves the end of a quiet home. But that really doesn't justify it.