The BaseEssayLessWrong
Rogue AI developers as hostis humani generis: under an international AI treaty, should they be subject to international concurrent jurisdiction?
Connor Williams argues on LessWrong that an international treaty banning superhuman AI would need a way to arrest rogue developers, and asks whether countries should have concurrent jurisdiction, modelled on the doctrine applied to pirates, rather than arrests only within borders.
Why it matters
The same thing, for different readers.
For lawmakers
A treaty enforcement design: who may arrest violators, and the risk that border-only arrests let a treaty collapse on suspicion.
The question it raises
Asks whether builders of superintelligence should be treated as enemies of all humanity, as pirates once were.
The record
- Questions
- Who can demand evidence, delay a release or stop an unsafe deployment? · How fast is AI advancing, and where is it heading?
- People
- Connor Williams (Wrote it)
- What we read
- We have read only the description the publisher gives. No quotations until someone reads the source itself.
- Found by
- The Radar, run of October 15, 2026, via
lesswrong(tier 1: the source’s own channel or an official record) - Cite this
- LessWrong, “Rogue AI developers as hostis humani generis: under an international AI treaty, should they be subject to international concurrent jurisdiction?”, October 14, 2026. Entry in the Ctrl AI Base, https://ctrlai.com/base/lesswrong-2026-10-14-rogue-ai-developers-jurisdiction
Our notesExcerpt only; argument beyond the opening is unseen. A forum post by one author.