Bad things like what? Armed psychopaths targeting AI executives?
I have a lot of interest in seeing how the common person response in this scenario.
When they speak of "existential consequences", it is not as members of humanity. It is a projection of their control over humanity. Personal risk for them is just being made into a regular human (no longer being ultrawealthy). They can't even contemplate physical risk. Case in point, this exact same class of people are buying up private islands and literally purchasing the blood of poorer people.
They would never accept your wager. It's the kind of thing Elon Musk would say "sounds interesting" to on Joe Rogan ten years ago, and then the only consequence after that would be his fanboys reminding everyone how cool it was that he said that.
Increased acceptance of political violence begets more political violence which in turn seems to increase its acceptance, see e.g. the killing of the healthcare CEO and subsequent arrest of the killer which significantly increased "democrats" support for political violence [1] so be careful what you ask for.
[1 https://academic.oup.com/poq/advance-article/doi/10.1093/poq...
Ideally, yes, but what is to be done when we're in the situation where people get to actively harm others, but are immune from consequences just because they're wealthy, powerful, and/or executives of corporations?
> Don't go there.
Which is it? Discuss or don't go there.
Sure violence is "a problem" - it is also a symptom that something is wrong in the context which created it. With the conflation of "reasonable" and "non criminal", or "non reasonable" and "criminal", you went into bad waters.
> cowardly down-voter
You have to understand that we sometimes downvote and then go composing instead of "I'll compose now and downvote later", for practical reasons. So, while potentially unnerving (especially from the frequentistic expectation in a forum full of snipers), you have to give it some time.
My core objection you received almost immediately.
> Queer people, protesters, ethnic and religious minorities, the poor, etc. have long been subject to various forms of harm by those in power
That sounds like something taken straight out of a 'progressive' party program.
If anything those groups receive preferential treatment, at least where I live (Sweden, Europe). State subsidies, positive discrimination, hiring quotas, publicly funded facilities and festivals and more. Far above average representation in public media and culture.
> All that has changed is that those in power are now also experiencing harm.
'harm' is also a word often seen in 'progressive' discourse where it seems to serve the purpose of enabling those who use it to equate minor inconveniences like dirty looks to physical and (in this case) lethal violence. In the current discussion on public executions of 'AI' (etc.) execs I don't think the term is applicable.
Systemic failure triggers the parasystemic shortcuts. Lack of justice and fairness has grave consequences - they must be curbed with justice and fairness (and their roots) exactly.
--
Any formal objection to the general principle above, current-snipers? Some states are already failed states, where justice is simply not there. At that point, the "at least it is not anarchy" that I myself have heard does not sound right. The reply below from hagbard_c is not sufficient: it is not a matter of slow justice but of clogged justice, and AI is not really relevant here.
Is it possible that you might be in a bit of a bubble? At least in the community that I live in there is already virtually no public trust in our "justice" system.