5 ms·

Does anyone else get a sense of de ja vu from the news this week? - Nuclear weapons development, specifically targeted at the US - Trade Tariffs - Improper s

Does anyone else get a sense of de ja vu from the news this week? - Nuclear weapons development, specifically targeted at the US - Trade Tariffs - Improper security classification in the whitehouse - Israel, Iran threatening war - China becomes a dictatorship Feels like we're going backward in time for some reason.

adventured 9y ago
It's the inflection switch from globalism, back to nationalism. A substantial increase in military conflict is guaranteed to come from it. We'll also see a massive leap forward in new, particularly stunning technologies again as nations begin to aggressively compete through technology to ensure survival. Nothing drives a leap forward quite like that.
- analogic 9y ago
  How long till we reach the point where the only viable strategy against the enemy bot ai is to give full control to our bot ai? Even smallest delay would matter so too dangerous to have human in the loop.
  - rtx 9y ago
    Never, since you have asked this question.
  - rocqua 9y ago
    You made me think of roko's bassilisk [1] I must say that I, for one, welcome the rule of our robot overlords. [1] https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Roko's_basilisk https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Roko's_basilisk
  - blackflame7000 9y ago
    Never because when you surrender your freedom the cure will be worse than the disease, always.
- fallingfrog 9y ago
  Not sure why you were downvoted. I think that's a terrifying statement but I don't see any strong evidence that you're wrong.
  - adventured 9y ago
    I'm being downvoted because it's simultaneously terrifying to most people and an unpopular opinion. It's pretty blatant that's what is going on however. China for one is leaps and bounds ahead of the US in progressing down that path (they hardly ever deviated from the extreme nationalism path, for a mere decade roughly). Xi will push it a lot further now. I don't see a good argument that globalism (as we knew it) was going to continue perpetually, that there would be no inflection occurance. It makes perfect sense that a trend like that would have an inflection and go the other direction eventually.
    - madez 9y ago
      There are chances that after the next substantially increased military conflict, you and I are dead. And so is practically everybody else. I fail to see the "stunning technologies" we could get from that.
      - adventured 9y ago
        I disagree. The major nuclear powers won't instigate nuclear war of that sort unless their territorial integrity is threatened. That will remain the pull-back point no matter the conflict. The technological leap that I'd expect, will begin to accelerate as the tension between large nations builds over the next decade. It's clear there will be a big competition between the powers in the form of an AI race for example (already underway), and it won't stop there. There's a very large gap between Cold War style conflicts coming back into commonality, or even moving a bit beyond that, and everybody deciding to commit nuclear suicide and kill each other.
- aphextron 9y ago
  >We'll also see a massive leap forward in new, particularly stunning technologies again as nations begin to aggressively compete through technology to ensure survival. Nothing drives a leap forward quite like that. This attitude assumes the linear progression of conventional warfare that existed among humans until the 20th century. A large scale nuclear exchange will be the end of us all.
  - adventured 9y ago
    I wasn't assuming global nuclear war in that scenario. You can see a large increase in armed conflict around the globe due to nationalism sparking conflicts, without the US and Russia nuking each other, or the US and China nuking each other. Russia goes into Belarus or Ukraine, maybe Kazakhstan. If you're a dictator like Putin and you can't expand your economy organically, you eventually try to do it through invasion. China will go after Taiwan sooner than later. In another ten years they'll be close enough to parity with the US to likely do it and have the odds strongly in their favor of safely getting away with it. The mess in the middle east will continue. There's still a high risk the US ends up at war with Iran, whether drawn in by Israel or otherwise. Saudi Arabia wants to become a nuclear nation. Both Saudi and Iran are practically guaranteed to reach for nuclear weapons in the coming decade or two. Saudi will want to get themselves positioned technologically in case Iran goes for that. Japan will probably begin/continue gradually re-arming. The major nuclear powers will go on a nuclear weapon upgrade spree, in competition with each other. That has already begun. China's moves there will be very interesting, given their (supposedly) relatively small arsenal. We'll very likely see the US, China and Russia deploy weapons to space. That'll add to the tensions.
  - forapurpose 9y ago
    > the linear progression of conventional warfare that existed among humans until the 20th century In fact, one major reason for the post-WWII institutions such as the UN, EU (then called something else), and others was to prevent another war. One major reason for preventing war (there are lots of good ones!) cited by leaders was that the technology of destruction had improved to such a point that another war could devastate civilization - that was over 70 years ago.

adventured 9y ago

It's the inflection switch from globalism, back to nationalism. A substantial increase in military conflict is guaranteed to come from it. We'll also see a massive leap forward in new, particularly stunning technologies again as nations begin to aggressively compete through technology to ensure survival. Nothing drives a leap forward quite like that.

analogic 9y ago
How long till we reach the point where the only viable strategy against the enemy bot ai is to give full control to our bot ai? Even smallest delay would matter so too dangerous to have human in the loop.
- rtx 9y ago
  Never, since you have asked this question.
- rocqua 9y ago
  You made me think of roko's bassilisk [1] I must say that I, for one, welcome the rule of our robot overlords. [1] https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Roko's_basilisk https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Roko's_basilisk
- blackflame7000 9y ago
  Never because when you surrender your freedom the cure will be worse than the disease, always.
fallingfrog 9y ago
Not sure why you were downvoted. I think that's a terrifying statement but I don't see any strong evidence that you're wrong.
- adventured 9y ago
  I'm being downvoted because it's simultaneously terrifying to most people and an unpopular opinion. It's pretty blatant that's what is going on however. China for one is leaps and bounds ahead of the US in progressing down that path (they hardly ever deviated from the extreme nationalism path, for a mere decade roughly). Xi will push it a lot further now. I don't see a good argument that globalism (as we knew it) was going to continue perpetually, that there would be no inflection occurance. It makes perfect sense that a trend like that would have an inflection and go the other direction eventually.
  - madez 9y ago
    There are chances that after the next substantially increased military conflict, you and I are dead. And so is practically everybody else. I fail to see the "stunning technologies" we could get from that.
    - adventured 9y ago
      I disagree. The major nuclear powers won't instigate nuclear war of that sort unless their territorial integrity is threatened. That will remain the pull-back point no matter the conflict. The technological leap that I'd expect, will begin to accelerate as the tension between large nations builds over the next decade. It's clear there will be a big competition between the powers in the form of an AI race for example (already underway), and it won't stop there. There's a very large gap between Cold War style conflicts coming back into commonality, or even moving a bit beyond that, and everybody deciding to commit nuclear suicide and kill each other.
aphextron 9y ago
>We'll also see a massive leap forward in new, particularly stunning technologies again as nations begin to aggressively compete through technology to ensure survival. Nothing drives a leap forward quite like that. This attitude assumes the linear progression of conventional warfare that existed among humans until the 20th century. A large scale nuclear exchange will be the end of us all.
- adventured 9y ago
  I wasn't assuming global nuclear war in that scenario. You can see a large increase in armed conflict around the globe due to nationalism sparking conflicts, without the US and Russia nuking each other, or the US and China nuking each other. Russia goes into Belarus or Ukraine, maybe Kazakhstan. If you're a dictator like Putin and you can't expand your economy organically, you eventually try to do it through invasion. China will go after Taiwan sooner than later. In another ten years they'll be close enough to parity with the US to likely do it and have the odds strongly in their favor of safely getting away with it. The mess in the middle east will continue. There's still a high risk the US ends up at war with Iran, whether drawn in by Israel or otherwise. Saudi Arabia wants to become a nuclear nation. Both Saudi and Iran are practically guaranteed to reach for nuclear weapons in the coming decade or two. Saudi will want to get themselves positioned technologically in case Iran goes for that. Japan will probably begin/continue gradually re-arming. The major nuclear powers will go on a nuclear weapon upgrade spree, in competition with each other. That has already begun. China's moves there will be very interesting, given their (supposedly) relatively small arsenal. We'll very likely see the US, China and Russia deploy weapons to space. That'll add to the tensions.
- forapurpose 9y ago
  > the linear progression of conventional warfare that existed among humans until the 20th century In fact, one major reason for the post-WWII institutions such as the UN, EU (then called something else), and others was to prevent another war. One major reason for preventing war (there are lots of good ones!) cited by leaders was that the technology of destruction had improved to such a point that another war could devastate civilization - that was over 70 years ago.