3 ms·
That makes little intuitive sense to me. Help me understand why increasing the number of entities which possess a potential-weapon is beneficial for humanity?
by afarviral 3y ago
That makes little intuitive sense to me. Help me understand why increasing the number of entities which possess a potential-weapon is beneficial for humanity?
If the US had developed a nuclear armament and no other country had would that truly have been worse? What if Russia had beat the world to it first? Maybe I'll get there on my own if I keep following this reasoning. However there is nothing clear cut about it, my strongest instincts are only heuristics I've absorbed from somewhere.
What we probably want with any sufficiently destructive potential-weapon are the most responsible actors to share their research while stimulating research in the field with a strong focus on safety and safeguarding. I see some evidence of that.
- cortesoft 3y agoLots of people disagree on whether it is true or not, but basically the idea is mutually assured destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
- afarviral 3y agoI sense that with AGI all the outcomes will be a little less assured, since it is general-purpose. We won't know what hit until it's over. Was it a pandemic? Was it automated-religion? Nuclear weapons seem particularly suited to MAD, but not AGI.
- Jensson 3y ago> If the US had developed a nuclear armament and no other country had would that truly have been worse? Yes, do you think it is a coincidence that nuclear weapons stopped being used in wars as soon as more than one power had them? People would clamor for nukes to be used to save their young soldiers lives if they didn't have to fear nuclear retaliation, you would see strong political pushes for nuclear usage in everyone of USA's wars.
- afarviral 3y agoHmm, indeed