The distinction between “accidental” and “negligent” is always a bit political. It’s a question of assignment of credit/blame for hypothetical worlds, which is pretty much impossible in any real-world causality model.
I do agree that in most discussions, “accident” often implies a single unexpected outcome, rather than a repeated risk profile and multiple moves toward the bad outcome. Even so, if it doesn’t reach the level of negligence for any one actor, Eliezer’s term “inadequate equilibrium” may be more accurate.
Which means that using a different word will be correctly identified as a desire to shift responsibility from “it’s a risk that might happen” to “these entities are bringing that risk on all of us”.
It’s also more descriptive of cause than effect, so probably not what you want. I’m still not sure what you DO want, though. The post itself is pretty unclear what you’re trying to convey with this missing word or phrase—you object to one, but don’t propose others, and don’t describe precisely what you wish you had a word for.
Anytime you use a short common word or phrase in a non-shared-jargon context, you have to accept that it’s not going to mean quite what you want. The solution is to either use more words to be more precise, or to pick the aspect you want to highlight and accept that others will be lost.
The distinction between “accidental” and “negligent” is always a bit political. It’s a question of assignment of credit/blame for hypothetical worlds, which is pretty much impossible in any real-world causality model.
I do agree that in most discussions, “accident” often implies a single unexpected outcome, rather than a repeated risk profile and multiple moves toward the bad outcome. Even so, if it doesn’t reach the level of negligence for any one actor, Eliezer’s term “inadequate equilibrium” may be more accurate.
Which means that using a different word will be correctly identified as a desire to shift responsibility from “it’s a risk that might happen” to “these entities are bringing that risk on all of us”.
I think inadequate equillibrium is too specific and insider jargon-y.
It’s also more descriptive of cause than effect, so probably not what you want. I’m still not sure what you DO want, though. The post itself is pretty unclear what you’re trying to convey with this missing word or phrase—you object to one, but don’t propose others, and don’t describe precisely what you wish you had a word for.
Anytime you use a short common word or phrase in a non-shared-jargon context, you have to accept that it’s not going to mean quite what you want. The solution is to either use more words to be more precise, or to pick the aspect you want to highlight and accept that others will be lost.