121–130 of 281 posts
Why is this surprising? Nuclear weapons are available. AI has limited real world experience or grasp of the consequences. Nuke 'em seems like the obvious choice --- for something with a grade school mentality. Similar deficits in reasoning are manifested in AI results every day. Let's fire 'em and hire AI seems like the obvious choice --- for someone with a grade school mentality and blinded by greed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There were lots of administrations who could have said to other countries ,,let's get rid of the nukes together'' while USA was the only string power. Deescalation stopped because of people in general not caring enough (and making money of being the biggest power), not because of administrations that come and go. As to the immigration situation: we know that governments are not executing in general how they should be…
> There were lots of administrations who could have said to other countries ,,let's get rid of the nukes together'' while USA was the only string power. There was only one administration with that opportunity, really; Truman. Every other administration has had a nuclear armed Russia in play. Attempts to do what you describe were still quite common, starting as early as the 1950s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear…
Why is this surprising? Nuclear weapons are available. AI has limited real world experience or grasp of the consequences. Nuke 'em seems like the obvious choice --- for something with a grade school mentality. Similar deficits in reasoning are manifested in AI results every day. Let's fire 'em and hire AI seems like the obvious choice --- for someone with a grade school mentality and blinded by greed.
Military competition in Europe is a big factor in what produced what some might call "slow AI": capitalism, which is now the chief cause of misery in the world. Military competition with AIs will produce something very ugly.
I'm not scared about AI recommending nuclear strikes, I'm scared about the human behind the keyboard delegating reasoning and responsability to something they think is always correct, something that can hide bias and flaws better than anything.
Why is this surprising? Nuclear weapons are available. AI has limited real world experience or grasp of the consequences. Nuke 'em seems like the obvious choice --- for something with a grade school mentality. Similar deficits in reasoning are manifested in AI results every day. Let's fire 'em and hire AI seems like the obvious choice --- for someone with a grade school mentality and blinded by greed.
How many words does an agent have to spill into it's backend context before Terminator gets mentioned and then it starts outputing more and more of that narrative?
They're all Gandhi in Civ 5
Bai et al. "Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback" https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.08073
As a human who grew up during the Cold War, nuclear conflict is horrifying.
From an AI standpoint, a nuclear strike likely has several benefits:
- It reduces friendly casualties and probably overall enemy casualties.
- It shortens conflict time.
- Reduces damage to infrastructure. (Rebuild costs)
- Is likely cheaper to deploy overall, compared to conventional weapons. This assumes the stated parameters indicate the nuclear weapons are already manufactured.
---
Edit: blibble brings up good counterpoints below. I was thinking in 1945 terms, which is flawed.
You are absolutely right, I should not have dropped those nukes.
Can't understand this choice of models.