8 ms·

That seems like an uncharitable reading of history. Even if technically correct, this interpretation of the effects of nuclear weaponry on the number of humans

That seems like an uncharitable reading of history. Even if technically correct, this interpretation of the effects of nuclear weaponry on the number of humans killed in war seems wildly off-base. https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace In the short-term anyway (by which I mean 1945 to the present day), the advent of nuclear weaponry seems to have decreased the number of humans killed. And that was certainly the most reasonable rationale for the use of nuclear warheads to end WW2.

jonknee 9y ago
You're discounting the non-zero chance that nuclear weapons will end the world as we know it. You can't say that about clicking ads.
- dmix 9y ago
  Still, it's ultimately about balancing alternatives. Whether there is a net-gain in exchange for an extremely rare potential scenario which every party is massively disincentived from ever pursuing even a minor exchange of 'tactical' nukes... let alone the even smaller probability 'world ending' volleys. War was brutal for centuries and was only getting more destructive until nukes. As much as Oppenheimer may have regretted his involvement it's still has not turned into the total disaster many predicted. We could certainly do more to minimize the threat by reducing stockpiles but from a pure philosophical view of having nukes or not...eh I see a good argument in favour of it. Likewise people clicking on ads has generated tons of value for society and is a big foundation of the recent technical progress we've all benefited from. This is the tradeoff we've exchange for the relatively minor downside risk of ads making people engage in meaningless consumerist pursuits or unhealthy behaviour or be lied to slightly more efficiently by politicians.
  - sgt101 9y ago
    Your analysis has a number of assumptions. First that anyone contemplating nuclear weapon use is considering net-gains. Second that every party is disincentivized, either in rational calculative terms or in terms of their perception of the incentives. As a counter I give you the modern USA - what is the disincentive for the USA to use 20 or 30 tactical nukes if that achieves one of its strategic aims? Thirdly, what if I told you that the probability of a world ending volley approaches 1.0 ? What is the evidence that it doesn't? At the height of Watergate a drunken Nixon was quoted as saying "You know what the difference between us is? I'll tell you, I can walk out of this room right now and give an order and a hour later 80 million people are dead". Cuba was nearer the real deal that either side realised, we've had launch orders ignored and lose weapons that were a fail from going off - which almost certainly would have been interpreted as a strike. And yet people construct everything as ok.
    - dmix 9y ago
      > At the height of Watergate a drunken Nixon was quoted as saying "You know what the difference between us is? I'll tell you, I can walk out of this room right now and give an order and a hour later 80 million people are dead". Sorry, I'm really struggling to take this example seriously, despite the fact it was obviously meant in jest and Nixon was far smarter than most people give him credit for, as it ignores so much context, obvious deterrents, and basic common sense that it hardly changes the equation at all. Nor does the two potential major known nuclear near-accidents, as I've already conceded that much could be done to minimize the risk. Yet it could still be entirely logical to maintain nuclear weapons as an option going forward and to hold the opinion it was historically ultimately beneficial to society as a whole...
- gaius 9y ago
  Just today on HN there’s a story about another ad-driven company and their role in genocide...
- kolpa 9y ago
  AI and genetic engineering also might end the world as we know it.
  - sgt101 9y ago
    I know nothing about genetic engineering, but I know a lot about AI as it now exists. In an imaginary future it is possible that AI could become a technology that adds significant danger, but now the most dangerous element of AI that exists is definitely the bayesian reasoners that are used in nuclear fuzes, and without the nuclear bit they would not be all that dangerous would they? In terms of AI as a danger you can substitute "12 year old boy" in the loop and get a nastier result every time. Sadly and wickedly many horrible people all over the world have reached the same conclusion.

jonknee 9y ago

You're discounting the non-zero chance that nuclear weapons will end the world as we know it. You can't say that about clicking ads.

dmix 9y ago
Still, it's ultimately about balancing alternatives. Whether there is a net-gain in exchange for an extremely rare potential scenario which every party is massively disincentived from ever pursuing even a minor exchange of 'tactical' nukes... let alone the even smaller probability 'world ending' volleys. War was brutal for centuries and was only getting more destructive until nukes. As much as Oppenheimer may have regretted his involvement it's still has not turned into the total disaster many predicted. We could certainly do more to minimize the threat by reducing stockpiles but from a pure philosophical view of having nukes or not...eh I see a good argument in favour of it. Likewise people clicking on ads has generated tons of value for society and is a big foundation of the recent technical progress we've all benefited from. This is the tradeoff we've exchange for the relatively minor downside risk of ads making people engage in meaningless consumerist pursuits or unhealthy behaviour or be lied to slightly more efficiently by politicians.
- sgt101 9y ago
  Your analysis has a number of assumptions. First that anyone contemplating nuclear weapon use is considering net-gains. Second that every party is disincentivized, either in rational calculative terms or in terms of their perception of the incentives. As a counter I give you the modern USA - what is the disincentive for the USA to use 20 or 30 tactical nukes if that achieves one of its strategic aims? Thirdly, what if I told you that the probability of a world ending volley approaches 1.0 ? What is the evidence that it doesn't? At the height of Watergate a drunken Nixon was quoted as saying "You know what the difference between us is? I'll tell you, I can walk out of this room right now and give an order and a hour later 80 million people are dead". Cuba was nearer the real deal that either side realised, we've had launch orders ignored and lose weapons that were a fail from going off - which almost certainly would have been interpreted as a strike. And yet people construct everything as ok.
  - dmix 9y ago
    > At the height of Watergate a drunken Nixon was quoted as saying "You know what the difference between us is? I'll tell you, I can walk out of this room right now and give an order and a hour later 80 million people are dead". Sorry, I'm really struggling to take this example seriously, despite the fact it was obviously meant in jest and Nixon was far smarter than most people give him credit for, as it ignores so much context, obvious deterrents, and basic common sense that it hardly changes the equation at all. Nor does the two potential major known nuclear near-accidents, as I've already conceded that much could be done to minimize the risk. Yet it could still be entirely logical to maintain nuclear weapons as an option going forward and to hold the opinion it was historically ultimately beneficial to society as a whole...
gaius 9y ago
Just today on HN there’s a story about another ad-driven company and their role in genocide...
kolpa 9y ago
AI and genetic engineering also might end the world as we know it.
- sgt101 9y ago
  I know nothing about genetic engineering, but I know a lot about AI as it now exists. In an imaginary future it is possible that AI could become a technology that adds significant danger, but now the most dangerous element of AI that exists is definitely the bayesian reasoners that are used in nuclear fuzes, and without the nuclear bit they would not be all that dangerous would they? In terms of AI as a danger you can substitute "12 year old boy" in the loop and get a nastier result every time. Sadly and wickedly many horrible people all over the world have reached the same conclusion.