Lyndon Johnson, Prime Intellect, etc.
Relearning a grade-school lesson about checks and balances
I’ve read two books last year that got me thinking about power.
The first is The Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect. In this book, a computer wedded to Asimov’s three laws of robotics becomes God. Its near-unlimited power and single-minded devotion to its laws leads to many horrifying and unintended consequences.
The second is Robert Caro’s four1-volume biography of Lyndon Johnson These are about how LBJ ruthlessly accumulated political power in a corrupt and democratic society. And then he wielded it as he pleased, for good and for ill. Enriching himself, passing the Civil Rights Act, launching the Great Society, and miring the US in Vietnam.
Caro mentions almost offhandedly in an afterward of one of the books that “[LBJ] never went so far as assassination. Because he stayed in the lanes of what is acceptable in democracy.” Nobody in the US has immunity from committing murder. However much power LBJ accumulated, if he had had a political rival assassinated, he would have been caught and convicted. And that would be that.
The startlingly simple take-away for me is that of the importance of checks and balances.
When thinking about the good society, one of our principles worries should always be to avoid giving any person or institution too much power.
A surprising number of apocalyptic scenarios really just boil down to “X will get too much power, then use it to harm us.” This includes AI labs, the US president, the CCP, a global government, or a single AI itself.
Seems like a good case for just sticking to the tenets of classical liberalism. Too much power should not be stored in one place. Not in any individual. Not in any given government, or branch of government. Not in a company or an industry.
No matter how noble, no matter how wise that person or institution may seem.
Power should be checked and balanced.
So far