6 ms·

The only thing that will address that is a broad international agreement with sanctions and political consequences for aggressor AIs that violate it, just like

The only thing that will address that is a broad international agreement with sanctions and political consequences for aggressor AIs that violate it, just like agreements that mostly keep horrifying biological weapons off the table and mostly kept nuclear weapons programs in check. "mostly" still leaves a lot of room for bad actors, but these sorts of compromises have worked surprisingly well enough that the failures were notable. Political problems are only going to have political solutions, and almost by definition those are imperfect.

bsanr2 6y ago
The problem isn't so much an AI involved in military planning so much as an AI raised by the military, similar to how we are more okay with children who grow up to join the military rather than child soldiers (or children raised to be in the military). Defense (defense!) should be a tool taught and employed only after one has developed an understanding and appreciation of what they should be defending. Frankly, we shouldn't be developing AI outside of institutions with STRONG ties to humanist missions (possibly including religion). AI is not for war, and it's not for "efficient" resource extraction and development; it's for helping humanity to safeguard itself and its potential.
landryraccoon 6y ago
> mostly kept nuclear weapons programs in check. It has completely failed to keep nuclear weapons in check, imo. Keeping AI technology out of existence has the same problem as keeping nuclear weapons out of existence - the incentives are too great for any nation to have them. If a nation is armed with nuclear weapons, the only possible check on them is another nation that is armed with nuclear weapons. Thus even in the existing non-proliferation framework, the largest nations (the United States, Russia, China, several European powers) ALL still have nuclear weapons. The reason why is that if any nation was the only nuclear armed nation it would be impossible to defeat with any quantity of conventional force. The same argument applies for AI. It would be impossible avoid the existence of militarized AI if it provides the same level of force multiplication as nuclear weapons. It would be necessary for any nation to try to gain the same technology as a deterrent against attack by a rival that possesses the technology.
- baybal2 6y ago
  > The reason why is that if any nation was the only nuclear armed nation it would be impossible to defeat with any quantity of conventional force Really debatable. Bribe enemy generals, drop commando paratroopers right on top of enemy's political leadership, even at 90% attrition rates, bomb vital military infrastructure, like strategic stockpiles, to demoralise the enemy (making them understand that the war will be long, hungry, and ugly,) even if it means sacrificing the entirety of your airforce, and wait until your land force finally reaches enemy territory amid this complete chaos.
  - landryraccoon 6y ago
    Do you have any historical examples of someone accomplishing what you’ve described? It seems like if what you are arguing is possible, nukes don’t need to be invoked at all. Why wouldn’t you use the same technique against a conventional enemy, if it is possible at all?
    - baybal2 6y ago
      Well, all of the above is so far purely hypothetical. There are exactly 0 countries on record who went on offensive against nuclear states, with intention to invade them. To execute a strategy like this, one needs to be quite a monster to rationalise such losses in their sane mind. It is as ruthless to your own soldiers, as it is to the enemy: forcing a stronger enemy into the most ugly, meat grinding form of ground war, with exact intention to exact maximum attrition losses, while negating advantages of high tech weaponry. Sending them a message "All your bombers, and missiles are useless at the bayonet range, you will have to bury us with your bodies" Even Mao only sent covert cues to Soviets that he is ready to repeat Zhenbaotai, but even he had no real intention to follow up on them. That was a pure theatre.
      - landryraccoon 6y ago
        What you're saying sounds like a strong argument in favor of my original post. It is insane to go to war against a nuclear armed opponent. Sure, you could kill half your able bodied population of military age and maybe win (what if something goes wrong in your battle plan? Now you're nuked and the opponent is still combat ready), but now any of your neighbors can easily take advantage of your now devastated country.
CarbyAu 6y ago
To take your "not perfect" results into a conspiracy theory arena. Genetic engineering on humans. Politically there is a ban. But given your "not perfect enforcement" and 2000 billionaires I guess at least one of them has this goal - whether it is considered kooky or not. Someone is trying to engineer their offspring for intelligence/looks/health. Whether they achieve it remains to be seen and will no doubt come out in history.
Tuna-Fish 6y ago
Firstly, agreements do not keep biological weapons off the table or nuclear programs in check. The first is done largely by the great powers agreeing that it's a bad idea from a military standpoint. That is, biological weapons are not stockpiled not because of all the obvious horrible consequences, but because the common wisdom is that they are ineffective weapons. Keeping nuclear programs in check is mostly done through expense. Everyone who has them has made enough of them to feel safe, and doesn't want to make more because they are really expensive. After states have decided they don't want any more nukes, they sign agreements with each other to make sure no-one else is building a massive stockpile. If any of them wanted a larger stockpile, they would make it. In general, powerful states can not be limited by agreements. They only ever work as a framework that allows everyone to do what they would have wanted to do anyway, while feeling confident of what everyone else wants to do and how to plan for it. The American obsession of thinking of the UN as world government and international agreements as laws really distorts your view on the world. That is simply not how any of this works. But regardless of all that, even if broad international agreements would actually work to limit weaponry, it still wouldn't work, because AI is deniable. The initial AI isn't going to replace the pilot, they are going to augment them. And those are developed further until the pilots are no longer needed, and past that. So you can develop all the way to the point where humans have become a detriment, without needing to show your hand. And only deploy completely unmanned platforms once the proverbial shit hits the fan, which is after the point where everyone has stopped caring about international agreements anyway.
- baddox 6y ago
  > The first is done largely by the great powers agreeing that it's a bad idea from a military standpoint. That is, biological weapons are not stockpiled not because of all the obvious horrible consequences, but because the common wisdom is that they are ineffective weapons. Can you point to any evidence that this is the case? It doesn't sound plausible to me.
  - magicsmoke 6y ago
    https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-chemical-weapons-anymore/ https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-ch... This is about chemical weapons but a lot of it applies to biological as well. Biological weapons also have the added benefit of possibly becoming a global pandemic and infecting your own military and economic base.

bsanr2 6y ago

The problem isn't so much an AI involved in military planning so much as an AI raised by the military, similar to how we are more okay with children who grow up to join the military rather than child soldiers (or children raised to be in the military). Defense (defense!) should be a tool taught and employed only after one has developed an understanding and appreciation of what they should be defending. Frankly, we shouldn't be developing AI outside of institutions with STRONG ties to humanist missions (possibly including religion). AI is not for war, and it's not for "efficient" resource extraction and development; it's for helping humanity to safeguard itself and its potential.

landryraccoon 6y ago

> mostly kept nuclear weapons programs in check. It has completely failed to keep nuclear weapons in check, imo. Keeping AI technology out of existence has the same problem as keeping nuclear weapons out of existence - the incentives are too great for any nation to have them. If a nation is armed with nuclear weapons, the only possible check on them is another nation that is armed with nuclear weapons. Thus even in the existing non-proliferation framework, the largest nations (the United States, Russia, China, several European powers) ALL still have nuclear weapons. The reason why is that if any nation was the only nuclear armed nation it would be impossible to defeat with any quantity of conventional force. The same argument applies for AI. It would be impossible avoid the existence of militarized AI if it provides the same level of force multiplication as nuclear weapons. It would be necessary for any nation to try to gain the same technology as a deterrent against attack by a rival that possesses the technology.

baybal2 6y ago
> The reason why is that if any nation was the only nuclear armed nation it would be impossible to defeat with any quantity of conventional force Really debatable. Bribe enemy generals, drop commando paratroopers right on top of enemy's political leadership, even at 90% attrition rates, bomb vital military infrastructure, like strategic stockpiles, to demoralise the enemy (making them understand that the war will be long, hungry, and ugly,) even if it means sacrificing the entirety of your airforce, and wait until your land force finally reaches enemy territory amid this complete chaos.
- landryraccoon 6y ago
  Do you have any historical examples of someone accomplishing what you’ve described? It seems like if what you are arguing is possible, nukes don’t need to be invoked at all. Why wouldn’t you use the same technique against a conventional enemy, if it is possible at all?
  - baybal2 6y ago
    Well, all of the above is so far purely hypothetical. There are exactly 0 countries on record who went on offensive against nuclear states, with intention to invade them. To execute a strategy like this, one needs to be quite a monster to rationalise such losses in their sane mind. It is as ruthless to your own soldiers, as it is to the enemy: forcing a stronger enemy into the most ugly, meat grinding form of ground war, with exact intention to exact maximum attrition losses, while negating advantages of high tech weaponry. Sending them a message "All your bombers, and missiles are useless at the bayonet range, you will have to bury us with your bodies" Even Mao only sent covert cues to Soviets that he is ready to repeat Zhenbaotai, but even he had no real intention to follow up on them. That was a pure theatre.
    - landryraccoon 6y ago
      What you're saying sounds like a strong argument in favor of my original post. It is insane to go to war against a nuclear armed opponent. Sure, you could kill half your able bodied population of military age and maybe win (what if something goes wrong in your battle plan? Now you're nuked and the opponent is still combat ready), but now any of your neighbors can easily take advantage of your now devastated country.

CarbyAu 6y ago

To take your "not perfect" results into a conspiracy theory arena. Genetic engineering on humans. Politically there is a ban. But given your "not perfect enforcement" and 2000 billionaires I guess at least one of them has this goal - whether it is considered kooky or not. Someone is trying to engineer their offspring for intelligence/looks/health. Whether they achieve it remains to be seen and will no doubt come out in history.

Tuna-Fish 6y ago

Firstly, agreements do not keep biological weapons off the table or nuclear programs in check. The first is done largely by the great powers agreeing that it's a bad idea from a military standpoint. That is, biological weapons are not stockpiled not because of all the obvious horrible consequences, but because the common wisdom is that they are ineffective weapons. Keeping nuclear programs in check is mostly done through expense. Everyone who has them has made enough of them to feel safe, and doesn't want to make more because they are really expensive. After states have decided they don't want any more nukes, they sign agreements with each other to make sure no-one else is building a massive stockpile. If any of them wanted a larger stockpile, they would make it. In general, powerful states can not be limited by agreements. They only ever work as a framework that allows everyone to do what they would have wanted to do anyway, while feeling confident of what everyone else wants to do and how to plan for it. The American obsession of thinking of the UN as world government and international agreements as laws really distorts your view on the world. That is simply not how any of this works. But regardless of all that, even if broad international agreements would actually work to limit weaponry, it still wouldn't work, because AI is deniable. The initial AI isn't going to replace the pilot, they are going to augment them. And those are developed further until the pilots are no longer needed, and past that. So you can develop all the way to the point where humans have become a detriment, without needing to show your hand. And only deploy completely unmanned platforms once the proverbial shit hits the fan, which is after the point where everyone has stopped caring about international agreements anyway.

baddox 6y ago
> The first is done largely by the great powers agreeing that it's a bad idea from a military standpoint. That is, biological weapons are not stockpiled not because of all the obvious horrible consequences, but because the common wisdom is that they are ineffective weapons. Can you point to any evidence that this is the case? It doesn't sound plausible to me.
- magicsmoke 6y ago
  https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-chemical-weapons-anymore/ https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-ch... This is about chemical weapons but a lot of it applies to biological as well. Biological weapons also have the added benefit of possibly becoming a global pandemic and infecting your own military and economic base.