That's what he's arguing for. A global police state that knows what everyone is doing, everywhere, and can intervene at a moment's notice to stop certain kinds of technological work.
I don't agree with it. Much as i don't agree with the Dark Forest premise set forward in the Three Body Problem series, I thought it was very interesting nontheless and worth spending quite a bit of time musing over. As with Nick Bostroms thoughts.
Just because we disagree with a concept on ethical or practical or whatever reason doesn't mean we should be discussing it or that we can gain something from discussing it.
At least he can argue his side, unlike the politicians constantly pushing for a more and more draconian state.
It sounds obvious when you say it, but here we are. Philosophers themselves have either (a) taken an "ethnographic turn" (c/o John Dewey) where they realize the limitations of there own expertise and figure the standard they should strive for is being stronger describers of reality, disentangling its confusions, or (b) acquired expertise in the thing they are philosophing about, which makes them a kind of theorotician or highly informed historian.
If Bostrom ain't writing code how do we know if he is grounded in anything?
> Yes of course surveillance capabilities increase the states’ ability to suppress the restless populations…
> With some of the developments in nuclear technology, we now have the ability to wage wars that would have immediate planetary implications. So our technological prowess is galloping, whereas our wisdom and ability to peacefully cooperate with one another seems to develop at a slower pace. So, I think we need to spur on this cooperation horse to make sure that we can keep up with the galloping technological horse.
> If we think about this as a race between our growing powers and our ability to use those powers wisely, it seems unclear who will win that race.
What is stopping people from refraining from unethical use of technology, right now? Nothing. Yet many people still don't refrain, and think if something profitable can be done, if people can be manipulated or used in a certain way, then it's "smart" to do that. What'd be the the problem with not having growing disparities of power, and first becoming decent societies, and then getting to play with all sorts of fancy tech?
> If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality.
-- Stephen Hawking
And that inequality and making people superflous will lead to the possibility of atrocities that will be committed because they can be over in an instant, with nobody but perpetrators left to accuse them. Even right here on HN I had a short conversation with someone who earnestly thought we will and should be replaced with GAI, the next step in evolution so to speak, and that people should work towards that in secret, because people wouldn't accept being superseded by something much "better". I don't know what would lead to such an outlook, but it exists.
Just corporations doing mass surveillance isn't an absence of mass surveillance, the difference would be governments (a singular state is not mentioned, nor a police state) doing that too, preferably in working democracies, the achievement of which is part of the above "using our powers wisely" (and choosing wisely, whom we empower to do what on our behalf).