LessWrong4h agoenergy 117

Why Governments Might Race to Build ASI Even If It Could Kill Us All

image: LessWrong

I'm not sure if it's game theoretically possible for a nation state to give up a decisive strategic edge and hence I am not confident the development of ASI can realistically ever be stopped as I believe governments will attempt to develop aligned-ASI in secret if they commercially ban it. I have been listening to Nate Soares interviews and he will often point to international cooperation on nuclear weapons. But to me nuclear weapons treaties look like failures of international cooperation. We still have enough nuclear weapons on earth to destroy basically all of modern civilization. We built enough to destroy all of earth, and then we said: "let's not build more than we need to destroy all of earth" and then we patted ourselves on the back "oh boy, good that we stopped building more of those nuclear bombs, imagine if we destroyed all of civilization twice over!". And by the way China is still building nuclear weapons because they rightly assess they can't destroy as much of the earth as Russia and the USA can and they want to reach parity on destroying all of modern civilization. There have been instances of internationally cooperating to forego some strategic edge, such as chemic

read the original at LessWrong →
This source publishes only a summary in its feed, so the full article lives at the outlet. The link above and below goes to the original.