261–270 of 281 posts
How to Launch a Nuclear Weapon - https://outrider.org/nuclear-weapons/articles/how-launch-nuc...
How to Start a Nuclear War: The increasingly direct road to ruin - https://harpers.org/archive/2018/08/how-to-start-a-nuclear-w...
Nuclear Weapons delivery - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_delivery
Dead Hand - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We have prior art that says humans don't just launch all the nukes just because the computers or procedures say to. previously no-one had spent trillions of dollars trying to convince the world that those computers were "Artificial Intelligence"
of course they did. That's the literal topic of War Games (1983). You should actually be somewhat reassured that we aren't living during the era of Dr. Strangelove where you had characters in the military industrial complex who were significantly more insane when it came to the beliefs of what computer systems and nukes can do. There was a time when people wanted to dig tunnels with nukes https://en.wikipedia.org/wik…
Probably ran out of tokens before the end, during training.
"How about a nice game of Chess?"
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
of course they did. That's the literal topic of War Games (1983). You should actually be somewhat reassured that we aren't living during the era of Dr. Strangelove where you had characters in the military industrial complex who were significantly more insane when it came to the beliefs of what computer systems and nukes can do. There was a time when people wanted to dig tunnels with nukes https://en.wikipedia.org/wik…
Digging tunnels with nukes sounds better to me than shooting them at each other!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was a recent conflict that came up, and there was a debate about whether or not one of the sides was committing war crimes. And I remember thinking to myself and saying in the debate “if this were a video game strategically speaking, I’d be committing war crimes.” And sadly, I think this logic holds up.
if you win the war then there really isn't any such thing as a war crime. Worst case is you feel guilty about it, there aren't any other consequences of your actions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So "just nuke 'em" is pretty good for you?
No. That's why I'm asking where it comes from. The explanation that "LLMs don't have experience of nuclear war" isn't satisfying because nobody really has any experience of nuclear war.
Isn't the story here that the DOD is pressuring Anthropic and others to enable their AI for this specific use and for now Anthropic and others are saying no while the DOD threatens them with penalties. We desperately need real AI safety legislation.
AI safety legislation is for the masses, not the government. Eventually they will get full AI safety by banning all general purpose computing. All apps must exist within walled garden ecosystems, heavily monitored. Running arbitrary code requires strict business licensing. Prison time for illegal computing. Part of Project 2025 playbook.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Reserves of fuel, food, and clean water will not last nearly that long [i.e., years]. Untrue. A survey done by nuclear-war planners in the 1980s found that there is enough food stored on or near farms to feed half the US population for about 3 years. During peacetime, most of this food is fed to farm animals, but there is no reason it cannot be used to keep people alive instead. This food, mostly grains and soybeans…
You cannot sustain a population center of any size on rainfall. For that, you need electricity to operate municipal pumps (which will likely be absent, as above - if not immediately after generation and distribution is destroyed, then a few weeks later when fuel for the generators is exhausted). Without that the bulk of the population is dead in under a week. Repurposing feed grain reserves is interesting, but you ne…
Fuel is similar: the amount currently used by the average person is much higher than the amount needed (i.e., to transport food and other essentials) just to keep people alive until our industrial base can be reconstituted enough that survival becomes easy again, so we can expect to be able to survive for a few years on fuel that was produced before the attack. Most motor vehicles will probably survive the attack, for example, according to analyses made by US war planners during the cold war, and the fuel tanks of each of them will on average be about half full even if no warning of the attack reaches the general public. Home heating is not strictly necessary for survival except maybe on the coldest nights of the year, which is good because I doubt there is enough firewood in the continental US to keep the survivors of the attack warm every night for a few years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. That's why I'm asking where it comes from. The explanation that "LLMs don't have experience of nuclear war" isn't satisfying because nobody really has any experience of nuclear war.
Most people have experienced violence, a broken leg, arm, or something else. They can extrapolate from that, that they really don't want to live in an active war zone. Show me the human who hasn't experienced pain! Show me the LLM who did.
And yet humans wage conventional war pretty freely.