I can’t imagine such a proposal working well in the United States. I can imagine some countries e.g. China potentially being on board with proposals like these. Because the United Nations is a body chiefly concerned with enforcing international treaties, I imagine it would be incentivized to support arguments in favor of increasing its own scope and powers. I do predict that AI will be an issue it will eventually decide to weigh in on and possibly act on in a significant way.
However, that creates a kind of bi-polar geopolitical scenario for the remainder of this century, approximately speaking. The United States is already on adversarial terms with China and has incentives against participating in treaties that seem to benefit less-developed competing nations over itself. If China and other U.N.-aligned countries are more doggedly insistent on antagonizing the US for being willing to keep developing its technology no matter what (especially in secret) and that it can successfully get away with it, then you have forces that polarize the world into camps: On the one hand, the camp that advocates technology slowdown and surveillance—and associated with countries that already do this—and on the other hand, the camp that supports more liberal ideals and freedom (which will tend to be anti-doomers), and are likewise associated with countries that have governments supportive of such ideals.
Politically, the doomer-camp (FHI and FLI et. al.) will begin to be courted by more authoritarian governments, presenting an awkward situation.
Because the United Nations is a body chiefly concerned with enforcing international treaties, I imagine it would be incentivized to support arguments in favor of increasing its own scope and powers.
You imagine falsely, because your premise is false. The UN not only isn’t a body, its actions are largely controlled by a “Security Council” of powerful nations which try to serve their own interests (modulo hypotheticals about one of their governments being captured by a mad dog) and have no desire to serve the interests of the UN as such. This is mostly by design. We created the UN to prevent world wars, hence it can’t act on its own to start a world war.
AFAIK, the Secretary-General is a full-time position, e.g., and whoever holds that position is not necessarily considered in that role at the behest of another country acting to represent only their country’s interests. Would you say that António Guterres seeks to fulfil the objectives of only Portugal, and not the goals of the UN and whatever it says its values are?
I can’t imagine such a proposal working well in the United States. I can imagine some countries e.g. China potentially being on board with proposals like these. Because the United Nations is a body chiefly concerned with enforcing international treaties, I imagine it would be incentivized to support arguments in favor of increasing its own scope and powers. I do predict that AI will be an issue it will eventually decide to weigh in on and possibly act on in a significant way.
However, that creates a kind of bi-polar geopolitical scenario for the remainder of this century, approximately speaking. The United States is already on adversarial terms with China and has incentives against participating in treaties that seem to benefit less-developed competing nations over itself. If China and other U.N.-aligned countries are more doggedly insistent on antagonizing the US for being willing to keep developing its technology no matter what (especially in secret) and that it can successfully get away with it, then you have forces that polarize the world into camps: On the one hand, the camp that advocates technology slowdown and surveillance—and associated with countries that already do this—and on the other hand, the camp that supports more liberal ideals and freedom (which will tend to be anti-doomers), and are likewise associated with countries that have governments supportive of such ideals.
Politically, the doomer-camp (FHI and FLI et. al.) will begin to be courted by more authoritarian governments, presenting an awkward situation.
You imagine falsely, because your premise is false. The UN not only isn’t a body, its actions are largely controlled by a “Security Council” of powerful nations which try to serve their own interests (modulo hypotheticals about one of their governments being captured by a mad dog) and have no desire to serve the interests of the UN as such. This is mostly by design. We created the UN to prevent world wars, hence it can’t act on its own to start a world war.
AFAIK, the Secretary-General is a full-time position, e.g., and whoever holds that position is not necessarily considered in that role at the behest of another country acting to represent only their country’s interests. Would you say that António Guterres seeks to fulfil the objectives of only Portugal, and not the goals of the UN and whatever it says its values are?