7 ms·

>> As well as any nation who's best and brightest minds refuse to contribute while their adversaries have no such qualms. Wait, what? Are you saying that if a

>> As well as any nation who's best and brightest minds refuse to contribute while their adversaries have no such qualms. Wait, what? Are you saying that if a scientist refuses to contribute to AI development that will be used to kill human beings then he plays into the hands of nation's adversaries ?

CalRobert 5y ago
Not to put words in their mouth but isn't that pretty clear? If you don't develop advanced weaponry, you are going to be killed by people who _do_ develop advanced weaponry. Unless you manage to stop the advanced weaponry from being developed at all, which is admirable, but incredibly difficult, and with huge consequences for being wrong.
- atlasunshrugged 5y ago
  Or unless you have a significant enough deterrent and the credibility to use it in basically any sort of conflict (N. Korea may fit into this category)
- pasabagi 5y ago
  That depends on your model of international relations. Most states have recognized that international relationships are far from zero sum, and that wars between peer competitors are almost never worth it. Indeed, the success stories since WW2 have been those countries that have spent very little on weapons, and engaged in few wars (with the US being the exception). Even if you take WW2 and WW1 into account, the biggest winner of those conflicts (the US) spent the least on armaments prior, and had probably the least aggressive foreign policy of any major power.
  - boppo1 5y ago
    > have been those countries that have spent very little on weapons, and engaged in few wars (with the US being the exception). Perhaps, because the US is an exception.
    - pasabagi 5y ago
      Maybe? China has historically spent very little on its military, and it's not like they benefited from US protection. Quite the opposite, in fact.
      - nradov 5y ago
        China's military spending is now effectively near parity with the USA and rising rapidly. https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/chinas-defense-spending-larger-it-looks https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/chinas-defense-s...
        pasabagi 5y ago
        Dunno about the methodology there, but, that's why I said historically.
        triactual 5y ago
        Great, so maybe it's time to revise the rest of the thinking as well.
- sAbakumoff 5y ago
  >>but isn't that pretty clear? No, for me it's counterintuitive. Personally I'd never contribute to any military technology.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - CalRobert 5y ago
    OK, but that means someone with good weapons can kill you and take your stuff.
    - arpa 5y ago
      killing me is easy enough as-is, without the need for advanced technology. Literally any cop can bash my head in. Further arms race when nuclear weapons are present is pointless, as any conflict with nuclear power is likely to end in nuclear exchange, and is acceptable only if you are a psycho that thinks megadeaths is just a number upon which strategy can be built.
- mateo1 5y ago
  Although the idea that MAD saved us from a nuclear holocaust is prevalent, people tend to forget how a strong anti-war effort was required to dissuade the crazy people from ideas like megadeaths being an ok strategic decision and stopping plans like the "Star Wars Program" on their tracks (which has unfortunately resumed with potentially tragic consequences). These weapons and technologies are developed by nation-states only, and a collaboration, however unlikely might seem to you, is the only way to stop us from pointing guns at each others heads with AI controlling the trigger. The technologies will be developed, and have to be developed for the sake of balancing powers, but they need to be put in a drawer and locked there after being designed, not widely deployed and flaunted at each other.
Victerius 5y ago
Yes, that's exactly what it means.
onepointsixC 5y ago
Consider for a moment that you believe that Nuclear weapons are abominations which should be all eliminated. How do you convince North Korea to eliminate theirs? If you eliminate your nuclear weapons, you now open yourself to being threatened with nuclear destruction by North Korea with no mutual assured destructive response to deter them. The genie is out of the bottle and you cannot stop it. But you can deter its use against you.
- heartbeats 5y ago
  Surely, this is not a serious take. For one, NK hardly has the capacity to "destroy" the US - they barely have working ICBMs. Secondly, whatever the amount of nuclear warheads necessary to deter this is, it's surely less than 3,750[0]. We cannot know whether it is impossible to stop the "genie," as no serious attempt has been made. The U.S. and Russia together hold 90% of the world's nuclear weapons. The Cold War being over, are you seriously proposing they need this entire arsenal in order to defend themselves against the very serious and dangerous threats of checks notes Pakistan and North Korea? If so, then how come the US still reserves the right to a pre-emptive nuclear strike? How come it has not adopted a "no first use" policy like China and India? [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_of_the_United_...
  - onepointsixC 5y ago
    I chose North Korea for the thought experiment because of it's belligerence, not because of it's quantity of nuclear weapons. >The Cold War being over, are you seriously proposing they need this entire arsenal in order to defend themselves against the very serious and dangerous threats of checks notes Pakistan and North Korea? Why did you choose to ignore the Chinese who are currently rapidly expanding their nuclear arsenal. The world is on the precipice of a new cold war between Beijing and Washington. >If so, then how come the US still reserves the right to a pre-emptive nuclear strike? How come it has not adopted a "no first use" policy like China and India? A "no first use" policy is worth less than the paper it would be printed on. No one serious actually believes in them.

CalRobert 5y ago

Not to put words in their mouth but isn't that pretty clear? If you don't develop advanced weaponry, you are going to be killed by people who _do_ develop advanced weaponry. Unless you manage to stop the advanced weaponry from being developed at all, which is admirable, but incredibly difficult, and with huge consequences for being wrong.

atlasunshrugged 5y ago
Or unless you have a significant enough deterrent and the credibility to use it in basically any sort of conflict (N. Korea may fit into this category)
pasabagi 5y ago
That depends on your model of international relations. Most states have recognized that international relationships are far from zero sum, and that wars between peer competitors are almost never worth it. Indeed, the success stories since WW2 have been those countries that have spent very little on weapons, and engaged in few wars (with the US being the exception). Even if you take WW2 and WW1 into account, the biggest winner of those conflicts (the US) spent the least on armaments prior, and had probably the least aggressive foreign policy of any major power.
- boppo1 5y ago
  > have been those countries that have spent very little on weapons, and engaged in few wars (with the US being the exception). Perhaps, because the US is an exception.
  - pasabagi 5y ago
    Maybe? China has historically spent very little on its military, and it's not like they benefited from US protection. Quite the opposite, in fact.
    - nradov 5y ago
      China's military spending is now effectively near parity with the USA and rising rapidly. https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/chinas-defense-spending-larger-it-looks https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/chinas-defense-s...
      - pasabagi 5y ago
        Dunno about the methodology there, but, that's why I said historically.
        triactual 5y ago
        Great, so maybe it's time to revise the rest of the thinking as well.
sAbakumoff 5y ago
>>but isn't that pretty clear? No, for me it's counterintuitive. Personally I'd never contribute to any military technology.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- CalRobert 5y ago
  OK, but that means someone with good weapons can kill you and take your stuff.
  - arpa 5y ago
    killing me is easy enough as-is, without the need for advanced technology. Literally any cop can bash my head in. Further arms race when nuclear weapons are present is pointless, as any conflict with nuclear power is likely to end in nuclear exchange, and is acceptable only if you are a psycho that thinks megadeaths is just a number upon which strategy can be built.
mateo1 5y ago
Although the idea that MAD saved us from a nuclear holocaust is prevalent, people tend to forget how a strong anti-war effort was required to dissuade the crazy people from ideas like megadeaths being an ok strategic decision and stopping plans like the "Star Wars Program" on their tracks (which has unfortunately resumed with potentially tragic consequences). These weapons and technologies are developed by nation-states only, and a collaboration, however unlikely might seem to you, is the only way to stop us from pointing guns at each others heads with AI controlling the trigger. The technologies will be developed, and have to be developed for the sake of balancing powers, but they need to be put in a drawer and locked there after being designed, not widely deployed and flaunted at each other.

Victerius 5y ago

Yes, that's exactly what it means.

onepointsixC 5y ago

Consider for a moment that you believe that Nuclear weapons are abominations which should be all eliminated. How do you convince North Korea to eliminate theirs? If you eliminate your nuclear weapons, you now open yourself to being threatened with nuclear destruction by North Korea with no mutual assured destructive response to deter them. The genie is out of the bottle and you cannot stop it. But you can deter its use against you.

heartbeats 5y ago
Surely, this is not a serious take. For one, NK hardly has the capacity to "destroy" the US - they barely have working ICBMs. Secondly, whatever the amount of nuclear warheads necessary to deter this is, it's surely less than 3,750[0]. We cannot know whether it is impossible to stop the "genie," as no serious attempt has been made. The U.S. and Russia together hold 90% of the world's nuclear weapons. The Cold War being over, are you seriously proposing they need this entire arsenal in order to defend themselves against the very serious and dangerous threats of checks notes Pakistan and North Korea? If so, then how come the US still reserves the right to a pre-emptive nuclear strike? How come it has not adopted a "no first use" policy like China and India? [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_of_the_United_...
- onepointsixC 5y ago
  I chose North Korea for the thought experiment because of it's belligerence, not because of it's quantity of nuclear weapons. >The Cold War being over, are you seriously proposing they need this entire arsenal in order to defend themselves against the very serious and dangerous threats of checks notes Pakistan and North Korea? Why did you choose to ignore the Chinese who are currently rapidly expanding their nuclear arsenal. The world is on the precipice of a new cold war between Beijing and Washington. >If so, then how come the US still reserves the right to a pre-emptive nuclear strike? How come it has not adopted a "no first use" policy like China and India? A "no first use" policy is worth less than the paper it would be printed on. No one serious actually believes in them.