4 ms·
If we're focused on weapons of mass destruction, I prefer a world of nuclear nonproliferation to the opposite. There are relatively few nations that possess nuc
by vonnik 11y ago
If we're focused on weapons of mass destruction, I prefer a world of nuclear nonproliferation to the opposite. There are relatively few nations that possess nuclear weapons, and we have very few instances of them using those weapons against anyone else.
To argue against myself, I'd say that the difference between weapons and AI is that AI is more general. It's not just a killing machine. In fact, I hope that killing represents the minority of its use cases.
- mindcrime 11y agoIf we're focused on weapons of mass destruction, I prefer a world of nuclear nonproliferation to the opposite So do I generally speaking, but with a caveat... I think that having multiple (eg, more than 1 or 2) nuclear powers is likely a Good Thing (given that the tech exists at all). The whole MAD principle seems very likely to be one reason the world has yet to descend into nuclear war. The main reason I prefer nuclear non-proliferation though, isn't because I genuinely expect something like a US/Russia nuclear war, it's more the possibility of terrorists or non-state actors getting their hands on a nuke. It's interesting though, because these various analogies between guns, nukes and AI's don't necessarily hold up. I was about to say a lot more, but on second thought, I want to think about this more.
- jfoutz 11y agoI actually prefer japan's approach. They know exactly how to build nukes. They don't have any on hand. If they're backed into a corner, they'll produce as many as they feel they need. Unfortunately during the cold war, neither side could really rely on the other to just chill out for a couple of days. So now we can deliver hundreds (thousands?) anywhere in the world in about 45 minutes.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]