[ExI] My review of Eliezer Yudkowsky's new book (UBI)

[Adrian Tymes]

On Mon, Oct 6, 2025 at 10:50 AM Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
> The self-imposed limit is what they think they can get away with,
> without too much of that.  In their eyes, risking shutdown is better
> than risking giving up control.

...and I think I'll share a scenario that's been discussed elsewhere.
Please do advise if this veers too much into politics.  ExiMod, I'd
ask first but I do not know how to do so.

Various constitutional amendments have been floated that would fix the
shutdown potential.  One scenario involves a constitutional coup that
uses such an amendment to secure its legitimacy.

The precondition is currently hypothetical: the current shutdown lasts
much longer than the last one, perhaps 2-3 months by the time this is
enacted.  During that time, most military and law enforcement don't
get paid.  They're promised back pay once there is a budget, but that
doesn't pay mortgages or bills.  (Since they're usually paid about
twice a month, the first hit of this happens around October 15th.
This scenario takes place after 4-6 such hits, and assumes there is no
near-term end in sight at that time.)  The following happens on a day
when the House and Senate are in session.

1) Law enforcement sits on a bit over 2/3rds of the Republicans in the
House and Senate.  Arrest, protective custody - there are numerous
excuses for short-term detention, and this detention is expected to
last less than 24 hours.  Enough are left that both chambers have
quorum, but the Democrats have 2/3 majority.  Absent members, per
existing rules, are counted as absent/not voting for any votes that
happen while they are away; all relevant vote thresholds (such as
votes requiring 2/3 majority) are only counted against the votes
actually cast.  (Law enforcement is more likely to go along with this
than the military, and law enforcement has much more legal excuse to
do this than the military.  The military is more likely to stay
neutral.)

2) A new Speaker of the House and President of the Senate are elected.
Both of these are Democrats, obviously.

3) Trump, Vance, and all Trump-favoring Supreme Court justices are
impeached.  This specifically requires a 2/3 majority in the Senate.
This promotes the new Speaker to the Presidency.

4) The new President is sworn in.  Then, another new Speaker is elected.

5) A budget is passed.

6) While the new President is signing the budget, pass a
constitutional amendment to the effect of, "If there's no budget
passed by the end of the fiscal year, the previous fiscal year's
budget is automatically used unless and until a new budget is passed
to replace it."  At least 38 states will need to ratify it, which may
be doable within a few months.  A number of states will refuse on the
grounds that this is a proxy vote to recognize the legitimacy of the
coup, but if only up to 12 do so, it's no matter: the coup government
holds the legality and the funding, and any movement to say that Trump
should still be in power doesn't have those funds.

7) The new President dismisses Trump's Cabinet, and plans to
potentially serve the rest of the term without a Cabinet.  (Likewise,
the Supreme Court plans to operate with only the unimpeached justices,
assuming that no new ones will be able to be confirmed by the Senate.)
 If deemed necessary, the new President also pardons the law
enforcement officers who've been doing the sitting-upon.

8) Once the new budget and constitutional amendment are signed, the
sat-upon Republicans are released.  They can't unimpeach anyone, nor
can they unpass the amendment.  At most, they can - and are expected
to - be the Party of No, much as they were under Obama, but so long as
the amendment is ratified before October 1, 2026, they can't shut down
the government again even if they refuse to pass a budget.

9) Come midterms, highlight the destruction the Republicans did while
in power, and that they refused to help rebuild afterward.  Maybe open
up ballot access investigations to improve the viability of third
parties, so that voters who can't bring themselves to vote D at least
have a realistic option to vote not-R, and make sure a viable not-R
candidate (whether D or third party) runs in every district without
exception, even "safe" R districts.

Consider your reaction in the scenario that it is subsequently alleged
that some AI came up with this plan, as opposed to your reaction in
the scenario where no such serious allegation is made (or, at least,
gains much public notice).  Also consider how much AI counsel the new
President may rely upon, especially since that President would be
planning to have to act without a Cabinet for a few years.