We do not attack their character. We do not make humans the problem. The problem is their actions. Attacking people’s character is not aligned with our fundamental commitment to nonviolence, neither in principle, nor in the outcomes it generates. We will not win by vilifying the people we’re trying to bring to the table. We will also not build the wholesome, sustainable, broad-based, vibrant movement the world needs by running on an engine fuelled by personal drama and shaming.
Like some other commenters, I think this is misguided reasoning... but I do thin... (read more)
Imagine a future where the majority of humanity justifiably feels at least as outraged as she does; if this is a possible future - which seems likely to me, if the AIs don’t immediately kill or pacify us - it could be worth updating to agree with them.
Including "justifiably" here begs the question. Yes, if they turn out to have been justified in their outrage, updating to agree would be correct... but the argument is essentially over the question of justification.
Finally saw this courtesy of the 2019 review; you might be interested in David Skarbek's two books on prison order, "The Social Order of the Underworld" and "The Puzzle of Prison Order." They flesh out this question in the context of prisons quite a bit (and have been getting a lot of buzz in the political science world).
Like some other commenters, I think this is misguided reasoning... but I do thin... (read more)