It’s that last fatalistic sentence that I am responding to. Why is it persuasive to think if a company can and will build AI that might kill everyone then it’s unavoidable. Soviet bans lots of things.

I think the closest analogue here is the nuclear bomb. I do think there was a certain point where it became "inevitable." I don't think society has ever prevented a technology that was known to be within reach from being developed. In this case you don't even need the most powerful state-level actors. Open source capabilities are only a short timespan behind frontier labs. At some point basically every individual will have access from the comfort of their own home.

I don't think "just make it illegal" is going to save us, that doesn't make me feel safe anyway. They may try that first because it's easy - create a regulatory body, sign some legislation, problem solved! [george-bush-mission-accomplished.jpg] But at this point I feel like some kind of Battlestar Galactica scenario is most likely - hopefully not quite as existential - but it will take a collective reaction to a traumatic event (a la Hiroshima/Nagasaki). Technical rather than (or in addition to) legal measures will be taken, like network partitioning and hardening. This is everyone's problem whether we like it or not.

(I'm not saying this "fatalism" should be used as an excuse by anyone working for any of these companies, it should give them pause that any blood shed would still be squarely on their hands, but as an observer, people are gonna keep pushing until shit hits the fan. [jeff-goldblum-jurassic-park.gif] It's also not really about whether it's "appealing" or not, it's just trying to predict and anticipate different likelihoods...)