armed conflict | autonomous weaponsweapon | biosecurity | global catastrophic risk | nuclear warfare |vulnerable world hypothesis
I think some subset of what people in the EA/GCR/x-risk community might have in mind when talking about terrorism might not technically fit the standard definitions of "terrorism". In particular, an omnicidal non-state actor probably shouldn't really count as a "terrorist" actor, since their goal isn't to cause certain emotional and political reactions. But I don't know what term would be more fitting - my first thought was "intentional harm by non-state actors", but that's both long+clunky and also too broad (that should technically cover one child hitting another child deliberately).
So it's probably fine for this to just settle for the term "terrorism" anyway here.
armed conflict | autonomous weapons | biosecurity | global catastrophic risk | nuclear warfare | vulnerable world hypothesis