I don’t understand the reference to assassination. Presumably there are already laws on the books that outlaw trying to destroy the world (?), so it would be enough to apply those to AGI companies.
Notably, no law I know of allows you to take legal action on a hunch that they might destroy the world based on your probability of them destroying the world being high without them doing any harmful actions (and no, building AI doesn’t count here.)
I’m quite happy for laws to be passed and enforced via the normal mechanisms. But I think it’s bad for policy and enforcement to be determined by Elon Musk’s personal vendettas. If Elon tried to defund the AI safety institute because of a personal vendetta against AI safety researchers, I would have some process concerns, and so I also have process concerns when these vendettas are directed against OAI.
I don’t understand the reference to assassination. Presumably there are already laws on the books that outlaw trying to destroy the world (?), so it would be enough to apply those to AGI companies.
Notably, no law I know of allows you to take legal action on a hunch that they might destroy the world based on your probability of them destroying the world being high without them doing any harmful actions (and no, building AI doesn’t count here.)
What if whistleblowers and internal documents corroborated that they think what they’re doing could destroy the world?
Maybe there’s a case there, but I’d doubt it get past a jury, let alone result in any guilty verdicts.
I’m quite happy for laws to be passed and enforced via the normal mechanisms. But I think it’s bad for policy and enforcement to be determined by Elon Musk’s personal vendettas. If Elon tried to defund the AI safety institute because of a personal vendetta against AI safety researchers, I would have some process concerns, and so I also have process concerns when these vendettas are directed against OAI.