This is a commonly cited failure of deontology and in particular classical liberalism. Whether physical violence is morally justified, whether it’s justified by local law, whether it’s justified by international rules of war, whether it’s effective, and whether it’s a mechanistically understandable response from victims of harm a behaviorist perspective, are all different questions. I typically answer that most violence is ineffective and yet that the motivations can be mechanistically understood as arising from locally reasonable mechanisms of thought; most violence is illegal, but most legal systems commit large amounts of physical violence to which any form of retaliation at all is legally unavailable; and most legal systems are implemented by people who disobey their own laws regularly. Does this morally justify violence? I abstain, violence is always a tragedy even if morally justified and effective; but it morally compels immense effort to build a healthier network of locally empowered personal control of personal outcomes, which is absolutely contrary to how current orgs are designed, and orgs should fear mass violence from morally ambiguous but mechanistically understandable mass retaliation should mass unemployment result in mass death. Altman has even said similarly recently, though less directly!
I doubt violence is effective now, but we shouldn’t encourage people to tie their hands behind their backs either, as strategic ambiguity on the part of the world’s population is a critical component of the game theoretic pressure on labs to prevent harms themselves.
I’m sorry if my point wasn’t made clearly. Things are taboos because of social customs & contexts, my point wasn’t meant to be normative — just point out that the taboo isn’t against violence against ai labs, it’s against violence more broadly.
Yes but what I’m saying is that this isn’t true—few people are absolute pacifists. So violence in general isn’t taboo—I doubt most people object to things like laws (which ultimately rely on the threat of violence).
So why is it that violence in this specific context is taboo?
You asked why this sort of violence is taboo, not whether we should break that taboo or not. I’m merely answering your question (“Why is violence in this specific context taboo?”). The answer is because it’s illegal. Everyone understands, either implicitly or explicitly, that the state has a monopoly on violence. Therefore all extralegal violence is taboo. This is a separate issue from whether that violence is moral, just, necessary, etc.
Everyone understands, either implicitly or explicitly, that the state has a monopoly on violence.
Not true.
For example, many organizations in Mexico do not recognize that the Mexican state has a monopoly on violence. And they actively bring violence upon those who try to claim it on behalf of the state, sometimes successfully.
It’s not that violence against AI labs is a taboo… it’s that violence is a taboo.
This is a commonly cited failure of deontology and in particular classical liberalism. Whether physical violence is morally justified, whether it’s justified by local law, whether it’s justified by international rules of war, whether it’s effective, and whether it’s a mechanistically understandable response from victims of harm a behaviorist perspective, are all different questions. I typically answer that most violence is ineffective and yet that the motivations can be mechanistically understood as arising from locally reasonable mechanisms of thought; most violence is illegal, but most legal systems commit large amounts of physical violence to which any form of retaliation at all is legally unavailable; and most legal systems are implemented by people who disobey their own laws regularly. Does this morally justify violence? I abstain, violence is always a tragedy even if morally justified and effective; but it morally compels immense effort to build a healthier network of locally empowered personal control of personal outcomes, which is absolutely contrary to how current orgs are designed, and orgs should fear mass violence from morally ambiguous but mechanistically understandable mass retaliation should mass unemployment result in mass death. Altman has even said similarly recently, though less directly!
I doubt violence is effective now, but we shouldn’t encourage people to tie their hands behind their backs either, as strategic ambiguity on the part of the world’s population is a critical component of the game theoretic pressure on labs to prevent harms themselves.
So, you would have advocated against war with Nazi Germany?
I’m sorry if my point wasn’t made clearly. Things are taboos because of social customs & contexts, my point wasn’t meant to be normative — just point out that the taboo isn’t against violence against ai labs, it’s against violence more broadly.
Yes but what I’m saying is that this isn’t true—few people are absolute pacifists. So violence in general isn’t taboo—I doubt most people object to things like laws (which ultimately rely on the threat of violence).
So why is it that violence in this specific context is taboo?
Because it’s illegal.
This is a pedantic comment. So the idea is you should obey the law even when the law is unjust?
You asked why this sort of violence is taboo, not whether we should break that taboo or not. I’m merely answering your question (“Why is violence in this specific context taboo?”). The answer is because it’s illegal. Everyone understands, either implicitly or explicitly, that the state has a monopoly on violence. Therefore all extralegal violence is taboo. This is a separate issue from whether that violence is moral, just, necessary, etc.
Not true.
For example, many organizations in Mexico do not recognize that the Mexican state has a monopoly on violence. And they actively bring violence upon those who try to claim it on behalf of the state, sometimes successfully.