I saw a screenshot of this comment, and I was going to reply about the ex post facto prohibition, but 1a3orn beat me to it. That said, I have more detailed opinions about this, from back when Holly initially said this, so I've summarized some of them here.
My worry about Holly Elmore calling for Nuremberg trials for AI developers is less about what she directly said and more about her tone/vibes and the way she seems to conceptualize it. From the blog post where she argues for it:
But let’s imagine that we do have a “successful” warning shot that rallies the world to a real solution like Pause. The danger is clearly demonstrated— a 10% chance of extinction suddenly feels real— and the public appetite to allow further flirtation with mass death is gone.
What happens to those responsible?
Oh, what’s that you say, defendant? You weren’t breaking the law by making a superintelligence? Nullum crimen sine lege, no crime without a law? That was a defense at the Nuremberg trials, too. It was only after the Holocaust that we had a concept of “crimes against humanity” because until then there had been no precedent for punishing people for attempting to exterminate an entire race. No one has made a race of killer machines before, either, but don’t think that means you’re off the hook.
I have a few problems with this. It's really unclear what, exactly, she means by "warning shot". I don't know if, for example, the current cyberattack mess would count. Probably not, given that the world has not yet "woken up"? Regardless, this statement is somewhat divorced from actual harms from such a warning shot, and doesn't claim anything about them in particular.
I think that prosecuting people for incurring what they believed to be a 10% risk of catastrophic or existential outcomes is probably okay, as I expect you can cover it under existing laws, but I'm not sure that's what she wants. She explicitly disclaims the concept of "no crime without a law" as applying or being relevant here.
The Nazis were not working within framework of a constitutional democracy that granted them rights and protections and placed obligations on them. The employees of AI companies, and the AI companies themselves, are operating within such a framework. I believe, and maybe I'm being too optimistic here, but I do believe that if Congress passed a law prohibiting further capabilities development, basically everyone at the labs would stop. Nobody could have passed a law to stop the Nazis from committing crimes against humanity. I think this is an important difference between these situations, but I don't get the sense that it's one Holly particularly cares about.
I will also bring up this comment, not by Holly, but it is one that she liked:
However, if they do not pause (or get paused) soon enough, and if we get one or more serious (but survivable) catastrophes from their recklessness, then once we shut down the AI race for good, I will be in the streets demanding that they be dragged before an international tribunal to face justice.
I'm pretty pessimistic about poorly defined "international tribunals" as a method of achieving justice. I believe (though I could be wrong) that only mechanism which could even potentially do this legally is the International Criminal Court. However, the ICC does not have relevant jurisdiction, as the United States is not a signatory to the Rome Statute. My understanding is that in practice anything on an international level is unlikely to happen, and in my opinion advocating for this sort of thing seems bad.
To be clear, I think that in the event of a harmful or catastrophic outcome due to loss of control*, we should use existing law about general negligence/recklessness, and/or other relevant laws, which are probably broad enough to apply to such a situation, to seek civil and/or criminal penalties, depending on the specifics of the incident. I'm not against liability for AI companies or AI company employees. I am, however, skeptical that Holly cares all that much about the specifics. I find the vibe of this particular post of hers to be deeply off-putting.
*I'm not sure if the AI companies should be liable for harms from misuse by third parties. If someone uses a model to do something very harmful, maybe via jailbreak or an open weights fine-tune or something like that, it's not clear to me that it's relevantly the given AI company's fault. If you sell someone a gun, and they do murders with it, you aren't liable**. However, such "tool AI" misuse risks are, in my opinion, of lower concern and likelihood than loss of control risk, especially given current trends.
**It's more complicated than this and depends on your state of knowledge and other things but (if I remember correctly) this is usually true.
This morning, I got an email from the CEO of PauseAI. I will paste the text below. PauseAI has decided to distance themselves from PauseAI-US, with whom they share branding, but apparently not much else. This is a really confusing situation for volunteers and newcomers. I think it would be worth having a discussion to see how we can proceed in such a way that volunteers, especially in the US, are able to effectively direct their activism.
Email from PauseAI: