GP said cooperation, never implied the US would do it alone.

> You should put down the AI and do some self-reflection on how you came to hold these views.

I've been in the field for almost 2 decades, and actively thinking about AI risk for over 15 years.

I've always held the controversial opinion that there may come a time where we might unfortunately have to consider using force to protect our civilisation from the threat of ASI, but I've always reframed from openly discussing that because I'm so personally against any use of force and there's always been time for more peaceful options.

Several months ago I changed my tone on AI risk to stop worrying about the optics of what I'm saying because it's too late in the day for me not to speak plainly at this point. Similarly over the last week I've decided I can no longer reframe from advocating for the use of force (if necessary) to stop rouge actors from playing Russian roulette with civilisation.

Please understand I don't want anyone to be harmed. Perhaps you don't agree with my suggestion, but my stance ultimately comes from a position of harm reduction.

> preemptively against a 20% number you just made up?

It's a probability estimate. Happy to expand in detail on why 20% specifically, but first you accept I can't tell you what's going to happen in the future with certainty right? To some degree any prediction you might have about the future will be "made up".

If the thesis that "If anybody builds it, everyone dies" is true, or has any chance of becoming true, then it is the logical thing to do. As Geoffrey Hinton said, "If you want to know what it's like not to be the apex intelligence, ask a chicken."