Sabotaging your own company is not enough. You'd have to sabotage every other AI lab too. If you assume that's impossible, attempting to be the first to produce ASI is a rational alternative, even if you think it will most likely kill you. At least that way you have some control over the P(doom).

▲

bigstrat2003 25 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> If you assume that's impossible, attempting to be the first to produce ASI is a rational alternative, even if you think it will most likely kill you.

That is completely irrational.

	▲	mrob 23 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		1% chance of survival beats 0%.

▲

goatlover 41 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This sounds like a rationalization for gambling with everyone's lives, assuming they really believe such a thing.

	▲	mrob 25 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		What's the alternative? There's no realistic way to globally coordinate and enforce a ban. A direct action campaign against AI labs would only motivate increased security until sabotage becomes impossible. Starting a nuclear war would probably be enough to stop dangerous AI research, and that's only likely to kill about 50% of humans instead 100%, so it's a great improvement, but how is an individual supposed to start a nuclear war? Of course it would be better if everybody stopped, but it's a prisoner's dilemma scenario with no possibility of future rounds, so the rational play is to defect.

▲

39 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]