4 ms·

That's basically the reasoning behind MAD, and it checks out? See what happened to any nation that ever gave away their nukes.

by Aeolun 17d ago

vidarh 17d ago
Does it check out? India and Pakistan both have nukes and keep semi-regularly fighting each other. MAD "on paper" prevents either side from going far enough to provoke the other into using nukes, but even then it's fundamentally flawed because it works on the assumption that both sides are both rational and believes the other side to be rational, as well as that both sides understands the others red lines well enough. Already Reagan realised that isn't necessarily true - after Able Archer '83, he realised that the Soviet leadership seemed to genuinely believe that the US might be prepared to carry out a first strike, and that Able Archer got dangerously close to convince them one might be imminent. It's one of the things he noted as a reason to get in the room with them and negotiate. If you believe the other side is irrational (whether or not that is because you are irrational), and think they're about to strike, MAD turns from a deterrence into a reason to try to preempt to ensure you're the "least destroyed" by hitting harder, sooner.
- walthamstow 17d ago
  Minor skirmishes are not war. China and India have border skirmishes with literal wooden sticks, neither side will use live ammo because they both have nukes.
  - vidarh 16d ago
    Conveniently shifting to a different conflict, and ignoring that India and Pakistan have carried out missile strikes on each other, killed civilians, occupied territory.
    - walthamstow 16d ago
      Like I said, minor skirmishes. No war between India and Pakistan since they both got nukes in the 70s. Not bad for two states that have been hostile their entire existence.
      - vidarh 15d ago
        Trying to justify MAD on the basis that missile attacks on a nuclear power is somehow "just" minor skirmish is bullshit, and you know it. It's demonstrably the case that you can attack a nuclear power without being nuked. It is then more likely than not than you can carry out significantly worse attacks without suddenly risking a nuke - there is no indication to the contrary.
        deleted 14d ago
        [deleted]
        walthamstow 14d ago
        > It's demonstrably the case that you can attack a nuclear power without being nuked It's demonstrably the case that attacks can take place between nuclear powers and not escalate to war. Why do you think that is?
sharts 17d ago
Shouldn’t everyone have nukes then, for maximum peace?
- AdamN 17d ago
  That's been proposed before btw and game theorists can justify that as being more stable in some ways. However it reduces the power of the incumbents (so why let it happen?) and the odds of having an irrational actor with nukes goes up.
- philipallstar 17d ago
  You want people with a lot to lose in a nuclear war to have nuclear weapons, and to make sure no-one else does.
- Cthulhu_ 17d ago
  In theory, yes, because nobody would want to launch first because they'd get obliterated. However, it only takes one country to not be rational. Nuke-owning countries' leadership seems to have become more and more unhinged and less rational, predictable, or honorable over time. Putin already threatened to use nukes if the conflict they caused themselves crossed their own border. It didn't happen, but the threat was there. The US' leadership is unhinged and irrational. etc.
- yanhangyhy 17d ago
  no, only the 'big rational ones', they think carefully.. that why Iran cannot have, and so as NK, but NK is a mistake because they(china,USA...) failed to prevent NK have it.
  - deleted 17d ago
    [deleted]
- sdl 17d ago
  Always worth watching again: "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb" https://www.imdb.com/de/title/tt0057012/ https://www.imdb.com/de/title/tt0057012/
civvv 17d ago
Except it is very easy to verifiy whether or not someone has used a nuclear bomb, where as LLM's can be used in complete secrecy. MAD only works if you can verify that the other part is not using it.
treszkai 17d ago
Except in the case of nuclear weapons, humans have their hands on the launch codes, and the nukes are not going to launch themselves. In the case of extremely capable AI, nobody has their hands anywhere close, because nobody is able to – nor willing to – supervise a thousand agents running in parallel, when they usually get shit done. Except eventually they are so good at getting things done that they disregard the values of the human asking them the request, such as "do not hack other corporations". Interpreting human intent precisely is an extremely hard problem, especially in the face of something 1000x faster than you operating autonomously.
- senordevnyc 17d ago
  This is true, but does it change the game theory / arms race aspect of it?

That's basically the reasoning behind MAD, and it checks out? See what happened to any nation that ever gave away their nukes.

by Aeolun 17d ago

That's basically the reasoning behind MAD, and it checks out? See what happened to any nation that ever gave away their nukes.

vidarh 17d ago

Does it check out? India and Pakistan both have nukes and keep semi-regularly fighting each other. MAD "on paper" prevents either side from going far enough to provoke the other into using nukes, but even then it's fundamentally flawed because it works on the assumption that both sides are both rational and believes the other side to be rational, as well as that both sides understands the others red lines well enough. Already Reagan realised that isn't necessarily true - after Able Archer '83, he realised that the Soviet leadership seemed to genuinely believe that the US might be prepared to carry out a first strike, and that Able Archer got dangerously close to convince them one might be imminent. It's one of the things he noted as a reason to get in the room with them and negotiate. If you believe the other side is irrational (whether or not that is because you are irrational), and think they're about to strike, MAD turns from a deterrence into a reason to try to preempt to ensure you're the "least destroyed" by hitting harder, sooner.

walthamstow 17d ago
Minor skirmishes are not war. China and India have border skirmishes with literal wooden sticks, neither side will use live ammo because they both have nukes.
- vidarh 16d ago
  Conveniently shifting to a different conflict, and ignoring that India and Pakistan have carried out missile strikes on each other, killed civilians, occupied territory.
  - walthamstow 16d ago
    Like I said, minor skirmishes. No war between India and Pakistan since they both got nukes in the 70s. Not bad for two states that have been hostile their entire existence.
    - vidarh 15d ago
      Trying to justify MAD on the basis that missile attacks on a nuclear power is somehow "just" minor skirmish is bullshit, and you know it. It's demonstrably the case that you can attack a nuclear power without being nuked. It is then more likely than not than you can carry out significantly worse attacks without suddenly risking a nuke - there is no indication to the contrary.
      - deleted 14d ago
        [deleted]
      - walthamstow 14d ago
        > It's demonstrably the case that you can attack a nuclear power without being nuked It's demonstrably the case that attacks can take place between nuclear powers and not escalate to war. Why do you think that is?

sharts 17d ago

Shouldn’t everyone have nukes then, for maximum peace?

AdamN 17d ago
That's been proposed before btw and game theorists can justify that as being more stable in some ways. However it reduces the power of the incumbents (so why let it happen?) and the odds of having an irrational actor with nukes goes up.
philipallstar 17d ago
You want people with a lot to lose in a nuclear war to have nuclear weapons, and to make sure no-one else does.
Cthulhu_ 17d ago
In theory, yes, because nobody would want to launch first because they'd get obliterated. However, it only takes one country to not be rational. Nuke-owning countries' leadership seems to have become more and more unhinged and less rational, predictable, or honorable over time. Putin already threatened to use nukes if the conflict they caused themselves crossed their own border. It didn't happen, but the threat was there. The US' leadership is unhinged and irrational. etc.
yanhangyhy 17d ago
no, only the 'big rational ones', they think carefully.. that why Iran cannot have, and so as NK, but NK is a mistake because they(china,USA...) failed to prevent NK have it.
- deleted 17d ago
  [deleted]
sdl 17d ago
Always worth watching again: "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb" https://www.imdb.com/de/title/tt0057012/ https://www.imdb.com/de/title/tt0057012/

civvv 17d ago

Except it is very easy to verifiy whether or not someone has used a nuclear bomb, where as LLM's can be used in complete secrecy. MAD only works if you can verify that the other part is not using it.

treszkai 17d ago

Except in the case of nuclear weapons, humans have their hands on the launch codes, and the nukes are not going to launch themselves. In the case of extremely capable AI, nobody has their hands anywhere close, because nobody is able to – nor willing to – supervise a thousand agents running in parallel, when they usually get shit done. Except eventually they are so good at getting things done that they disregard the values of the human asking them the request, such as "do not hack other corporations". Interpreting human intent precisely is an extremely hard problem, especially in the face of something 1000x faster than you operating autonomously.

senordevnyc 17d ago
This is true, but does it change the game theory / arms race aspect of it?