effective americanism ii
mercury “odentiation” anodyne has a thesis about Americanism:
It argues that Americanism, rather than being about outcomes, is about processes. I think this is a reasonably compelling point, but I’m not sure if I fully buy it? Or at least it seems arguable. Consider, for example, foreign intervention in other countries to liberate their people. Is this American?
Well, it seems that George Washington probably did not particularly think it so? But on the other hand, surely fighting the Nazis was American, right? I think if asked, Americanists across the political spectrum would likely claim that fighting Nazis was indeed an Americanist aim. Even if the American value of liberty is about valuing a particular process, that doesn't mean Americanism can’t broadly involve the promotion of that process throughout the world.
On the other hand, even if promoting liberty is Americanist, that doesn’t mean Americanism necessarily has some sort of utilitarian relationship to promotion of liberty. Americanism can still be virtue-ethical in style, and simply think that the promotion of liberty is virtuous.
Effective Americanism, as I described it, involves a utilitarian-style pursuit of the values of Americanism. But I don’t think this is incompatible with a virtue-ethical understanding of Americanism. One can believe that utilitarian tools are useful for the purpose of embodying Americanist virtues without necessarily biting all the bullets involved in a full-on utilitarian pursuit of outcomes associated with Americanism. This would permit one to make use of utilitarian analytical frameworks while still, when called for, objecting to a course of action on the grounds that it involves an unAmericanist process, even if it is targeted at Americanist aims (what a utilitarian might call “lesser unAmericanisms”).
mercury then goes on to posit:
Once you understand that Americanism is about implementing American processes without respect for outcomes, it becomes clear that halting AI progress is unamerican. If we made it illegal to develop the ASI that destroys the world, that would be unamerican, because that would be focusing on an outcome (American’s continued existence) rather than a process (building ASI).
I am somewhat skeptical of this position. While I am willing to grant the possibility that Americanism is largely about processes rather than outcomes, it seems dubious to posit that it is Americanist to entirely disregard outcomes. And certainly I think that defending America is Americanist, even if one thinks that is because it is Americanist for one to partake in policies that have the property that they defend America rather than it being Americanist to take actions that result in the continued survival of America.
But I do find it plausible that making it “illegal to develop the ASI” (Automated Superior Intelligence) would not be the most Americanist manner in which one could pursue the defense of America from the risks of ASI. I am therefore interested in analyzing what more Americanist ways of achieving that goal would be. Perhaps one could have the American people vote on what sorts of regulations should be applied to ASI corporations, thus fulfilling the requirement that processes be democratic? It does not seem to me that Americanism requires literally zero government action whatsoever. One must not forget the Whiskey Rebellion.
Basically all that is to say: before coming to the conclusion that Effective Altruist goals of existential risk prevention would not also be shared by Effective Americanism on the basis that Americanism is more policy-focused than outcome-focused, I want to actually see a list of possible courses of action that America could take to reduce existential risk and some argument about how Americanist each of those courses of action are. President Obama seems interested in interventions aimed at ASI safety, and one would imagine that man (whatever faults he may have) at least knows a thing or two about Americanism, right?