61–66 of 66 posts
>A state could try to disrupt such an AI project with interventions ranging from covert operations that degrade training runs to physical damage that disables AI infrastructure.
China has about half a dozen companies working towards AGI including DeepSeek and it doesn't seem that practical to go over to sabotage them in case they do well. Better to encourage local companies. And of course the US has already limited chip exports.
Robert Wright just posted a (somewhat) interesting conversation with one of the authors. His thesis involves at least two ideas (1) projects which could exponentially increase our AI capability are just around the corner (will happen by the end of this year or some time next year at the latest) (2) it's possible for state actors to deter those projects with sabotage (he coins the term Mutually Assured AI Malfunction)…
Did he go into what those ideas are in particular? Modern AI has 2 big shortcomings compared to humans right now imo: humans learn MUCH faster and humans are a lot better at solving novel problems. If they can make progress on this, I'd wager human intelligence is in danger.
I don't remember exactly what was suggested would be the forms of sabotage. He also suggested export controls on the high value chips used for training and running models.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By definition you can only respond to a decapitation strike if you haven't been decapitated. Anyways, I think the nuclear deterrent is an okay argument, I'm not totally convinced by it because I think you could also get right up to the line and even push it without your opponent being crazy enough to push the big red button. I think we're doing this right now to each other all the time. For example, China is systemat…
We put a lot of effort into making sure our nuclear infrastructure isn't vulnerable to a decapitation strike. I have no idea how AI might cripple all subs, for example. I completely agree that the line is the dangerous part, and it's an unclear target to aim for! I think that's exactly why we don't see major strikes against nuclear powers. Nobody has a public policy stating "we won't nuke you until exactly X, Y, and…
That doesn't seem unreasonable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We put a lot of effort into making sure our nuclear infrastructure isn't vulnerable to a decapitation strike. I have no idea how AI might cripple all subs, for example. I completely agree that the line is the dangerous part, and it's an unclear target to aim for! I think that's exactly why we don't see major strikes against nuclear powers. Nobody has a public policy stating "we won't nuke you until exactly X, Y, and…
What if AI could rapidly develop hypersonic interception technology? That doesn't seem unreasonable.
Regardless, we're back to MAD doctrines again. How many and how effective are your interceptors? How many nukes do you expect to be launched? What's your tolerance for failure? Margins for error are slim and consequences are rather dire.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if AI could rapidly develop hypersonic interception technology? That doesn't seem unreasonable.
That's exactly what I'd expect to happen, but I suspect we may have different definitions of "rapidly" here. Aerospace development requires building and testing stuff, and AI can only help so much there. Regardless, we're back to MAD doctrines again. How many and how effective are your interceptors? How many nukes do you expect to be launched? What's your tolerance for failure? Margins for error are slim and conseque…
Generally I think the outline that such a device would be a doomsday scenario for competitors remains quite plausible. This is somewhat easy to falsify because we would start seeing direct military action soon.
Taiwan especially is very vulnerable under this worldview and would be a pretty quick falsification.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's exactly what I'd expect to happen, but I suspect we may have different definitions of "rapidly" here. Aerospace development requires building and testing stuff, and AI can only help so much there. Regardless, we're back to MAD doctrines again. How many and how effective are your interceptors? How many nukes do you expect to be launched? What's your tolerance for failure? Margins for error are slim and conseque…
I think you've made reasonably good points. My least favorite aspect of discussing AI is the undercurrent that we're monkeys discussing the Sistine chapel. Ultimately, it's difficult to engage with the concept of superior intelligence. Generally I think the outline that such a device would be a doomsday scenario for competitors remains quite plausible. This is somewhat easy to falsify because we would start seeing di…
> My least favorite aspect of discussing AI is the undercurrent that we're monkeys discussing the Sistine chapel.
This resonates.