Attention LessWrong—I am a chosen user of EA Forum and I have the codes needed to destroy LessWrong. I hereby make a no first use pledge and I will not enter my codes for any reason, even if asked to do so. I also hereby pledge to second strike—if the EA Forum is taken down, I will retaliate.
Regarding your second strike pledge: it would of course be wildly disingenuous to remember Petrov’s action, which was not jumping to retaliation, by doing the opposite and jumping to retaliation.
I believe you know this, and would guess that if in fact one of the sites went down, you’d do nothing but instead later post about your moral choice of not retaliating.
(I’d also guess, if you choose to respond to this comment, it’d be to reiterate the pledge to retaliate, as you’ve done elsewhere. This does make sense—threats must be unequivocal to be believed, even if follow through is illogical.)
Furthermore, the way for someone to test your intention to follow through or not… is to push the red button. By posting this here and on the EA forum, you may have actually increased the motivation to push the button, so that the pushee can see what you do in response.
The site will remain up for one hour with a message that a missile is incoming (based on what I described here), and that message could be a false alarm.
Attention LessWrong—I am a chosen user of EA Forum and I have the codes needed to destroy LessWrong. I hereby make a no first use pledge and I will not enter my codes for any reason, even if asked to do so. I also hereby pledge to second strike—if the EA Forum is taken down, I will retaliate.
Regarding your second strike pledge: it would of course be wildly disingenuous to remember Petrov’s action, which was not jumping to retaliation, by doing the opposite and jumping to retaliation.
I believe you know this, and would guess that if in fact one of the sites went down, you’d do nothing but instead later post about your moral choice of not retaliating.
(I’d also guess, if you choose to respond to this comment, it’d be to reiterate the pledge to retaliate, as you’ve done elsewhere. This does make sense—threats must be unequivocal to be believed, even if follow through is illogical.)
Furthermore, the way for someone to test your intention to follow through or not… is to push the red button. By posting this here and on the EA forum, you may have actually increased the motivation to push the button, so that the pushee can see what you do in response.
Mutual Assured Destruction just isn’t the same when you can see for sure whether you were nuked
I can see whether the site is down or not. Seems pretty clear.
Just be aware that other users have already noticed messages which could be deliberate false alarms: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/EW8yZYcu3Kff2qShS/petrov-day-2021-mutually-assured-destruction?commentId=JbsutYRotfPDLNskK
I will be on the lookout for false alarms.
I don’t think you’ll be able to retaliate if the site is down.
In the message sent to holders of launch codes that’s repeated in this post, it says:
The site will remain up for one hour with a message that a missile is incoming (based on what I described here), and that message could be a false alarm.
Hmm, actually, it’s not clear to me whether the site will go down immediately (with the button in tact) or after an hour.