← All topics

liberalism

2 captures, most recent first.

@sethlazar

— saved image

Seth Lazar [verified]
@sethlazar

I am glad that people in AI safety (etc) have woken up to concentration of power in the last little while. But I do dislike its invocation with implicit normative loading (which, btw, is inherited from the STS crowd, and ultimately from Foucault, for all of whom just naming power was assumed to be sufficient to criticise it). Concentration of power is not necessarily bad! The modern liberal democratic state has a tonne of power. Parents have power over their children. CEOs have power over their companies. These aren't all eo ipso bad because they involve concentrated power.

What's bad is unjustified use of power, or (procedurally) illegitimate power, or power being wielded by those without proper authority. There's a lot of that going around too, and much more in prospect.

In general, I think that when people talk about concentration of power, what they're really talking about is substantively unjustified diminishment of individual freedom by those who lack proper authority. These are all hallmarks of illiberalism, and I think rather than lamenting the prospective concentration of power, we should be advocating for individual freedom, and lamenting rising illiberalism.

(Btw this is not a complaint about terminology, just a cri de coeur that we should get clear on the nature of our normative complaints, because that understanding is necessary to know how to remedy them) [cut off]
Note from Claude Sonnet 5

Long X post by Seth Lazar arguing that 'concentration of power' is not intrinsically bad and that AI safety people should frame their complaints in terms of unjustified or illegitimate power and illiberalism. Bold emphasis on 'unjustified', 'illegitimate', 'authority', 'nature'. Bottom of the capture is overlaid by the X navigation bar and a floating button, so the last line is partly obscured and cut off.

concentration of powerai safetypolitical philosophylegitimacyliberalismfoucault

Kelsey Piper @KelseyTuoc

Kelsey Piper @KelseyTuoc How do we live with each other? [Text card:] The tragic, iron law of our species is that human beings living together will differ in ways that they are willing to die over; differences that they're willing to kill over. If you're lucky, the worst you'll ever feel toward another person is irritation or annoyance. But for most of us — particularly those of us with siblings — at some point we'll feel what can only be described as murderous rage. Liberalism sprang out of the unavoidable truth that there will always be reasonable (and unreasonable) disagreement, and that a world where people cannot live among those with whom they disagree is a world of chaos and endless cycles of retribution. At root, it's a philosophy that exists to answer one question: How do we live with each other?
Note from Claude Sonnet 5

Kelsey Piper essay excerpt on liberalism as a philosophy for coexisting with irreconcilable disagreement. General political-philosophy reading, not directly AI-related.

political philosophyliberalismkelsey pipertwitter