> That said, isn’t the point of war also that it’s horrible and barbaric? If war isn’t that anymore, won’t it be much more frequent and casually started as a re

> That said, isn’t the point of war also that it’s horrible and barbaric? If war isn’t that anymore, won’t it be much more frequent and casually started as a result? Yes (usually), to the first question. The second begs the question though. Wars are destructive and enormously expensive. Only a tiny fraction of human leaders wielding a disproportionate amount of power have the agency to start wars, and they do so in order to pursue specific (but varied) objectives. Since the cost is high, no one does this lightly (even the "crazy" ones, because they would already have lost power if they weren't smart and calculating). AI may provide avenues to enhance the efficacy of wars. It may also provide avenues to enhance other strategies to achieve those objectives. In all cases, we can expect AI will be used to further the objectives of those humans with the power to direct its development and applications. It is therefore ludicrous and self-interested speculation to claim that AI will reduce death rates. Andreessen signals this with the preface "I even think" so that he can make the claim without any later accountability. The reality is, future wartime death rates may or may not decrease, but even if they do, we likely won't even be able to credibly attribute the change to AI versus all other changes to the global geopolitical environment.