5 ms·

The arguments presented are fairly weak. The two main suppositions are that "AI can be used to target racial groups." and "AI weapons could end up in the hands

The arguments presented are fairly weak. The two main suppositions are that "AI can be used to target racial groups." and "AI weapons could end up in the hands of ISIS, et. al." While both of these are true, and certainly cause for concern, the author greatly ignores the game theory aspect of AI powered weapons. Namely, if our enemies are building them, we must too. I'm not trying to fear monger, but US and China are already engaged in an AI arms race. It's illogical for either party at this point to stop development. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/technology/artificial-intelligence-china-united-states.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/technology/artificial-int...

pc86 8y ago
So do you think the best solution is to return to a Cold War-era MAD environment?
- dantillberg 8y ago
  Does MAD apply to AI-centered weapons? I thought the Cold War's MAD environment had more to do with the advantages that a nation would have if it were to preemptively attack, because the weapons act so fast over such long distances.
  - Tyrek 8y ago
    MAD is predicated on the fact that ICBMs take time to arrive at their target, and are effectively unstoppable. The idea is that if nuclear state A was to target nuclear state B, B would be able to launch their own arsenal at A before B was obliterated. Additional methods of delivery such as sub nukes, strategic bombers, Carriers with nukes, etc. further reinforce the concept as B would be able to retaliate even after its destruction. Now, the modern context has weakened MAD somewhat, because it's strictly an interpretation of nation-state level nuclear conflict. With the proliferation of (plausibly deniable) non-state actors in the 21st century, the concept breaks down as it makes it much harder to 'attribute' a target to blanket nuke in response.
- kerkeslager 8y ago
  If it's just about weapons, we never left a MAD environment. More nations have nuclear weapons now than ever before. Two things have changed with the end of the Soviet Union: 1. The nations whose mutual destruction is assured are less ideologically opposed to each other and more economically interdependent, however... 2. ...lots of the cold war era nuclear weapons have been lost. Not destroyed, lost--they could have fallen into the hands of anyone. Simply building weaponized AI doesn't reverse 1.
dwheeler 8y ago
Exactly so. A country without either an effective military, or a strong trustworthy ally with one, is quickly not a country. Switzerland is neutral, but that's not the same as pacifism; compulsory military service applies to all male Swiss citizens. Japan has its Japan Self-Defense Forces, bolstered by a strong alliance with the US.

pc86 8y ago

So do you think the best solution is to return to a Cold War-era MAD environment?

dantillberg 8y ago
Does MAD apply to AI-centered weapons? I thought the Cold War's MAD environment had more to do with the advantages that a nation would have if it were to preemptively attack, because the weapons act so fast over such long distances.
- Tyrek 8y ago
  MAD is predicated on the fact that ICBMs take time to arrive at their target, and are effectively unstoppable. The idea is that if nuclear state A was to target nuclear state B, B would be able to launch their own arsenal at A before B was obliterated. Additional methods of delivery such as sub nukes, strategic bombers, Carriers with nukes, etc. further reinforce the concept as B would be able to retaliate even after its destruction. Now, the modern context has weakened MAD somewhat, because it's strictly an interpretation of nation-state level nuclear conflict. With the proliferation of (plausibly deniable) non-state actors in the 21st century, the concept breaks down as it makes it much harder to 'attribute' a target to blanket nuke in response.
kerkeslager 8y ago
If it's just about weapons, we never left a MAD environment. More nations have nuclear weapons now than ever before. Two things have changed with the end of the Soviet Union: 1. The nations whose mutual destruction is assured are less ideologically opposed to each other and more economically interdependent, however... 2. ...lots of the cold war era nuclear weapons have been lost. Not destroyed, lost--they could have fallen into the hands of anyone. Simply building weaponized AI doesn't reverse 1.

dwheeler 8y ago

Exactly so. A country without either an effective military, or a strong trustworthy ally with one, is quickly not a country. Switzerland is neutral, but that's not the same as pacifism; compulsory military service applies to all male Swiss citizens. Japan has its Japan Self-Defense Forces, bolstered by a strong alliance with the US.