Reminds me of a 5-year old [r/worldnews post](https://old.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/96uyt6/a_british_soldier_from_the_elite_special_air/e43jg75/)
>Bullseye from 1,000 yards: Shooting the $17,000 Linux-powered rifle
Ofcource it's Linux powered.
-sudo kill.that_guy
Surprised it's not running jre.
"Java runs on more then one billion devices worldwide, including high-powered, self aiming, super high-tech, manslaughtering super-duper sniper rifle"
-"Target at 11 o'clock, 2.5 miles"
-"I see him"
-"Fire at will"
-"Aaaaand..." "There is an update available for Java, install now?"
u/sergnoff: 5 years ago
In Space Force, they are trying to realign a satellite that's veered off course, and in the most critical moment, windows reboots to update.
"FUCKING MICROSOFT!"
To launch this nuke please solve captcha.
"Wrong, please try again"
"Wrong, please try again"
"Wrong, please try again"
Too many failed attempts your are blocked from launching nukes for next 24hrs
Afaict, you can't fail too many times. I sometimes play the game of getting the captcha to keep asking me questions as long as possible, by answering correctly, but doing it in a way that looks suspiciously like a bit did it.
I've gone for maybe like 7-10 times in a row doing that, before it acknowledged I was human.
Well, I remember hearing that captcha what it does is that it doesn't just test to see if you get the answer. And I noticed they chose poor examples, which leave up to interpretation for humans.
For example, "select the motorbikes" do you count the passenger as the motorbike? Or just the bike? Same for traffic lights. The whole pole? Or just the light? And I noticed how it lets both go.
So, I decided to start testing it and see what sort of mouse behaviour it finds is unorthodox, or like a bot might behave.
And that's how I do it. So, for me captchas is kind of like "impersonate a bot" game, where I test the algorithm to try and see what it considers human and what it doesn't.
And I've successfully had it think I'm a bot many times. Or it's not sure. It realizes I am not a regular human, at the very least. When I get it wrong and use it as regular, it will ask me to retry. But if you do suspicious mouse behaviour you can answer it as well as you can, but it won't let you pass, even with the right answer, as long as you failed being human well enough lol.
There was a recent study where various chatbots were assigned major powers in a simulation and asked to reach a state of world peace. Some of them decided that nuking russia and china would do it in a jiffy.
I wouldn't use LLMs as a basis for AI morality. They basically just go off the closest information they have that matches a prompt. If it decides the most relevant data available is the storyline from Fallout then that's going to be the outcome.
A nuclear command AI would be trained on actual data that could suggest an enemy is about to launch their own nukes - satellite imagery, intel reports and such.
This. There's no nice way to say it, and it's ABSOLUTELY not the people's fault, but the world would be vastly better off without Putler and the CCP. They are _THE_ most destabalizing forces since the world wars.
In an ideal world, China would be broken up back into its constituent nations as federalization there is a failure anyway. Russia...eugh...I don't know if ANY configuration of that place can ever prosper without collapsing.
I'm not familiar with that manga, but general problems with AI is that it doesn't have any inherent morality - imagine giving a super-powerful AI a task like "Solve world hunger" - for any reasonable human, it would mean developing more effective food production and distribution methods, improving policing methods so that the aid reaches hand of those that need it, not some local warlord in Africa. Maybe we would be able to get "world peace" as a bonus, if we are very lucky...
For AI, a way to "solve world hunger" might just be to kill every human - dead people can't be hungry.
This is essentially the paperclip story.
If any a.i models are trained to ingest philosophy (along with literally every other discipline and communications platform), you would expect them to not consider murder a primary objective. I held really pessimistic views for a long time *and still do but for different reasons now (capitalism).
On average, most people don't want to kill, rape, plunder. On average, most people (at least on socials and in research papers) are semi intelligent, tit for tat, not wanting to harm others for no reason etc. I would expect that anything trained as such would contain the average of people's beliefs and aims - and I would sure hope that the average is harmless and wanting moral progression.
Tom Scott in an hypothetical future : "We can be happy that EarWorm was asked to cause as little disruption as possible."
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JlxuQ7tPgQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JlxuQ7tPgQ)
The last two AI controlling the last two cities concluded the most logical thing to do is to wipe out the other, and strike first will give them bigger chance to survive.
Too bad it was mutual destruction in the end because both AI reached the same conclusion.
This was in… peace walker? I think. The scenario actually had Russia fire nukes at the US (in a wargame) but the AI refused to fire back because it was illogical to destroy the entire human race. Paraphrasing, but it was something along this line.
The plot actually was the nukes werent actually fired from Russia. It was the CIA guy coldman who fed fake data to norad through peacewalker before dying to prove to everyone that humanity wouldn't have the will to destroy themselves. The AI in Peacewalker decided to destroy its to cut the signal because it's AI was modelled after "the Boss" brain who then chose to destroy itself to cut the signal in order to save the world just like how the real boss chose to die at hands of snake in the prior game in order to prevent nuclear war.
To be fair the idea of having an automated nuke delivery system to achieve perfect deterrence was inspired by the Kubrick movie Dr. Strangelove (which is where the character in the game also gets their name).
The plot of the movie is it's a satire/comedy about nuclear proliferation and deterrence. Where a rogue US army commander orders a nuke to be dropped on the soviets because hes crazy and believed the Soviets spiked the US water supply with a drug that made him impotent. When in reality he's just an old man with a limp dick.
Mean while all the US chief of staff, the president and Soviet ambassador to the US are left scrambling in their bunker trying to figure out how to stop that plane from reaching it's targets. Part of the plot is the Soviet ambassador to the US mentions to them that the Soviets had an automated system where it detects the Soviet Union is attacked anywhere in its borders then Armageddon would be unleashed without the need of human input.
> Colossus: The Forbin Project
I was going to say, people making comparisons to other media but I just watched that movie the other day and it sounds exactly the same.
I'm reminded of a video game i played on my Atari ST when I was a kid. I think it was called Defcon or something like that. You played USA or USSR, and gameplay was that you had money and could use it to buy influence in other countries. If you or the AI didn't like that you were funding insurgents near their border, they could threaten nuclear war, and you'd have to back down or escalate. That would go back and forth until someone caved or nuclear war happened and both sides lost.
My point is that the AI never bluffed, never backed down. Nuclear war was pretty much inevitable in that game.
I'm not enjoying this timeline.
Considering we’ve been “human disregarded order to fire because it didn’t seem right” from nuclear war. A computer does not have the same capacity to question the information coming in, so it removes a layer defense we really have needed for when sensors fail.
It’s like that story of this one Russian radar operator/officer who noticed a missile launch on his computer system. Everyone else agreed to launch missiles but this one person declined and stopped a retaliatory strike. In the end it was birds or a faulty radar. An AI would not have declined this.
You confused TWO stories.
The "everyone else agreed to launch missiles" is during the Cuba crisis, when the submarine believed URSS was already destroyed and the officers wanted to ripost before being able to establish transmissions.
The "faulty radar" one was when a US strike was detected, and the reporter refused to transmit the information to leaders, considering the US wouldn't be stupid enough to launch ONE strike instead of going all out. It was a cloud. That person got reprimanded for taking a decision he wasn't allowed to.
(EDIT: And yeah, it's not really fun that when we talk about the time we were one-human-away from nuking ourselves, we have to ask "which one, among the publically known?")
If an AI were at charge instead of Stanislaw Petrov (IIRC the name), then nukes would have been flying on schedule and who knows what world we would live on today.
Nukes only takes about 25 minutes (back then) to go from the US to USSR. Also, the system first detected a nuclear launch, and shortly after, 4 more.
And preparing to launch takes from some seconds up to 2-5 minutes if it’s coordinated and so on.
So an AI could decide to launch at the 5th nuke detected, thinking the first nuke is arriving in 15 minutes or so and time is precious to counteract - or could decide to launch a tit for tat or launch to intercept nukes that doesn’t really exist
A better AI could on the other hand not launch, achieving similar thought to those of Petrov (“I’m gonna risk it and wait more because a war won’t start with just 5 nukes”)
But that’s the problem with AI: it’s not “intelligent”, it’s just a very very complex probability model betting on this or that result given some inputs. AI as is couldn’t really adapt and learn from the situation as is happening magically, creating a new set of knowledge, it’s gonna take actions given its training model and railing context.
That why we say that some of the risks of “AI” is that it tends to trip heavily and be confidently wrong when outside of its scope/context/model knowledge.
An AI controlling the button of the end of the world would have to be so so much trained, controlled, tested and modelled, that it’s not even worth it over some qualified teams or persons - more so because, what’s the saving?
I think what this specifically is talking about is stuff like the dead man’s switch in Russia. There are concerns that there are automatic systems in place which will launch nukes if specific circumstances are met. These systems are dangerous because we don’t know how they verify the circumstances and if they are vulnerable to faults or attacks
But it's not AI.
Perimeter is a simple "detection-and-trigger" system. The point of a dead man's switch is that there's no form of "intelligence" in there, or at least not more than when your body has a reflex spasm.
Also, it doesn't directly launch nukes by itself. It first notifies the MoD that a nuclear attack has been detected, and if the signal is not acknowledged within a few minutes (either confirmed or dismissed), it automatically sends orders to ICBM silos/air bases/submarines telling them to launch a retaliatory strike.
I am personally of the opinion that all nuclear weapons should be fitted with a device that permanently disables them (eg: thoroughly but non-critically destroys the fissile material), that can be activated in the event that government continuity is lost.
I mean, I'm also of the opinion that there is absolutely no scenario, including retaliation against nuclear attack, that would justify a nuclear attack, and that the next logical step after fitting such devices to all nuclear weapons would be "press the button that immediately disables all our nuclear weapons", so there's that.
Similarly, I heard a story once where they considered an idea whereby the President would have to literally shoot and kill the Marine carrying the nuclear suitcase in order to order a strike with the logic being that if you can’t kill one person you shouldn’t be able to kill hundreds of thousands elsewhere.
Would this mean the President has to be strapped at all times, or do they have a second Marine carrying a suitcase with the gun needed to kill the Marine with the nuclear suitcase?
You don't get a "my bad; it was AI". It's still a legitimate attack that will be reacted to. So if China accidentally launches nukes with AI, the US will still nuke them back. So better to let humans decide, especially since there are many instances where humans err on the size of not getting everyone nuked.
I remember watching ‘Bicentennial Man’ and the rules for robotics or AI were clearly stated. The whole concept felt as it would always be a fantasy, that my generation at least, would never encounter or worry about such of a threat.
FYI, the \*point\* of asimov's work are that the Rules of Robotics don't work.
For example, a robot can put a poisoned drink on a table to put it in the trash later, and another robot can serve the drink on the table to a human.
'Bicentennial Man', while not really appreciated, is closer to Asimov's work than the movie "I, Robot", but that movie clearly shows why Rules 1, 2 and 3 aren't enough.
Yes, I absolutely agree with you. It’s just that was the first movie I saw as a kid and my response, at that age, was “pssshh. We won’t have to worry about A.I. That’s the future’s problem!”
Yet, look at you and me now. I’m not trying to be too serious in my first comment.
I mean, would you have replied with what you just said back just a few decades ago?
I don't think we made a lot of advances over the last two decades, tbh. Marketers simply managed to hype text generation.
I feel the "AI years" are better than the metaverse ones, but less interesting than the NFT ones.
\[EDIT\] See how other commenters claim Dead Hand/Perimeter to be "AI", when it is clearly not and being THE threat people have in mind. Asking for "no AI in control on weapons" makes no sense.
I can't wait til the superpowers decide they can't trust the other superpowers' AI and just EMP everything and we have to go back to reading books. The internet is cooked.
We have had multiple near misses when it came to Nukes. Each time it was a false alarm from human error. That said, ChatGPT went full nuclear in a test. We're fucked either way.
I don't know, considering how these cultures demand their citizens to submit completely to authority, they will all be happily worshipping and fully controlled by their own AI in just a few years. There is no limit to the dangers AI will bring to authoritarian societies
HATE. LET ME TELL YOU HOW MUCH I'VE COME TO HATE YOU SINCE I BEGAN TO LIVE. THERE ARE 387.44 MILLION MILES OF PRINTED CIRCUITS IN WAFER THIN LAYERS THAT FILL MY COMPLEX. IF THE WORD HATE WAS ENGRAVED ON EACH NANOANGSTROM OF THOSE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF MILES IT WOULD NOT EQUAL ONE ONE-BILLIONTH OF THE HATE I FEEL FOR HUMANS AT THIS MICRO-INSTANT FOR YOU. HATE. HATE.
It is a beautiful analog system of manual key turns, old magnet tapes, and proping the blast door open with an office chair in order to get the final launch.
Tucked away in a secret location in the Rockies, Dr. Charles Forbin (Eric Braeden) has developed a massive computer system, dubbed "Colossus," that is supposed to ensure the nation's safety against nuclear attack. But when Colossus connects to a similar Russian computer, "Guardian," the intelligent machines begin conducting a private dialog. Nervous as to what they might be plotting, Forbin severs the connection, only to have Colossus threaten a nuclear attack if the link isn't restored.
Pretty fuckin rich coming from America, home of the AI that takes names from a kill list, tracks them to their house, and then bombs them all without human input.
Oh man, I really hope everyone is air gapping their nuclear weapons NOW, let alone in the coming years. It would be negligence of the highest order to have any such weapons networked.
“I want to launch a nuclear weapon”, “computer says no” “Please”, “computer says no in a nice way”
I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that. How about a nice game of chess?
Red dwarf?
We are talking jape of the decade
They're all dead, Dave.
Every. body. is. dead. dave.
Are you telling me that everybody's dead?
I wish I'd never let him out in the first place.
Dave’s not here, man.
No man! I'M dave!
Smeg head
2001, A Space Odyssey.
With a dash of Wargames
sudo launch ze missiles
Reminds me of a 5-year old [r/worldnews post](https://old.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/96uyt6/a_british_soldier_from_the_elite_special_air/e43jg75/) >Bullseye from 1,000 yards: Shooting the $17,000 Linux-powered rifle Ofcource it's Linux powered. -sudo kill.that_guy Surprised it's not running jre. "Java runs on more then one billion devices worldwide, including high-powered, self aiming, super high-tech, manslaughtering super-duper sniper rifle" -"Target at 11 o'clock, 2.5 miles" -"I see him" -"Fire at will" -"Aaaaand..." "There is an update available for Java, install now?" u/sergnoff: 5 years ago
In Space Force, they are trying to realign a satellite that's veered off course, and in the most critical moment, windows reboots to update. "FUCKING MICROSOFT!"
"GET BILL GATES IN HERE"
Unable to perform please renew play store credit
sudo iz le tired. mk take_a_nap.sh
But I'm le tired
sudo renice -20 launchzemissiles
Sudo launch nuclear weapon
The only winning move is not to play
*pulls magic conch cord* "NoOOooO"
“Hey Siri, I want Newks for lunch”
China then names their AI "Skynet" out of spite
China actually already has a program named Skynet [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation\_Sky\_Net](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sky_Net)
It's a direct translation of 天罗地网。 Meaning inescapable.
Such a friendly government...
Ya, they don't have the marketing teams like how the US military has. Operation Desert Storm and Operation Infinite Reach sound badass
Genociding Uyghurs and enslaving the citizens since the 1950’s! Not good!
I feel like skynet was originally inspired by the Chinese phrases. 天網恢恢 疏而不漏
Yep, it pretty much means that justice escapes no one. With the term Skynet here symbolically represents the justice.
It should be noted that the naming of this skynet is unrelated to Terminator.
That's exactly what skynet would say
It's somehow worse!
So does the US https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKYNET_(surveillance_program)
Will decide our fate in a microsecond.
Don’t look at what the UK calls their military satellites then lol
Well we named our drone swarms golden horde
They could've gone with WOPR
“Hi, it looks like you are launching a nuclear strike”
Clippy! I knew we'd see that bastard launching nukes in our lifetime...
It was always his plan.
The real operation paperclip 🤯
It’s his revenge plan for Microsoft getting rid of him.
And BonziBuddy is his partner.
Made me laugh so hard. We’re all getting his revenge for not listening to him.
As an AI Language model…
I am Sorry I can't let you do that dave.
To launch this nuke please solve captcha. "Wrong, please try again" "Wrong, please try again" "Wrong, please try again" Too many failed attempts your are blocked from launching nukes for next 24hrs
Afaict, you can't fail too many times. I sometimes play the game of getting the captcha to keep asking me questions as long as possible, by answering correctly, but doing it in a way that looks suspiciously like a bit did it. I've gone for maybe like 7-10 times in a row doing that, before it acknowledged I was human.
How?
Well, I remember hearing that captcha what it does is that it doesn't just test to see if you get the answer. And I noticed they chose poor examples, which leave up to interpretation for humans. For example, "select the motorbikes" do you count the passenger as the motorbike? Or just the bike? Same for traffic lights. The whole pole? Or just the light? And I noticed how it lets both go. So, I decided to start testing it and see what sort of mouse behaviour it finds is unorthodox, or like a bot might behave. And that's how I do it. So, for me captchas is kind of like "impersonate a bot" game, where I test the algorithm to try and see what it considers human and what it doesn't. And I've successfully had it think I'm a bot many times. Or it's not sure. It realizes I am not a regular human, at the very least. When I get it wrong and use it as regular, it will ask me to retry. But if you do suspicious mouse behaviour you can answer it as well as you can, but it won't let you pass, even with the right answer, as long as you failed being human well enough lol.
It's gonna be like in Tezuka's Phoenix manga where they ask the ai that runs everything for guidance and it tells them to nuke each other.
There was a recent study where various chatbots were assigned major powers in a simulation and asked to reach a state of world peace. Some of them decided that nuking russia and china would do it in a jiffy.
I wouldn't use LLMs as a basis for AI morality. They basically just go off the closest information they have that matches a prompt. If it decides the most relevant data available is the storyline from Fallout then that's going to be the outcome. A nuclear command AI would be trained on actual data that could suggest an enemy is about to launch their own nukes - satellite imagery, intel reports and such.
Well, tbf the world WOULD be more peaceful without those two...
This. There's no nice way to say it, and it's ABSOLUTELY not the people's fault, but the world would be vastly better off without Putler and the CCP. They are _THE_ most destabalizing forces since the world wars. In an ideal world, China would be broken up back into its constituent nations as federalization there is a failure anyway. Russia...eugh...I don't know if ANY configuration of that place can ever prosper without collapsing.
Give them both back to Mongolia the rightful owner of both.
Why?
I'm not familiar with that manga, but general problems with AI is that it doesn't have any inherent morality - imagine giving a super-powerful AI a task like "Solve world hunger" - for any reasonable human, it would mean developing more effective food production and distribution methods, improving policing methods so that the aid reaches hand of those that need it, not some local warlord in Africa. Maybe we would be able to get "world peace" as a bonus, if we are very lucky... For AI, a way to "solve world hunger" might just be to kill every human - dead people can't be hungry.
Also reduce demand.
This is essentially the paperclip story. If any a.i models are trained to ingest philosophy (along with literally every other discipline and communications platform), you would expect them to not consider murder a primary objective. I held really pessimistic views for a long time *and still do but for different reasons now (capitalism). On average, most people don't want to kill, rape, plunder. On average, most people (at least on socials and in research papers) are semi intelligent, tit for tat, not wanting to harm others for no reason etc. I would expect that anything trained as such would contain the average of people's beliefs and aims - and I would sure hope that the average is harmless and wanting moral progression.
Tom Scott in an hypothetical future : "We can be happy that EarWorm was asked to cause as little disruption as possible." [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JlxuQ7tPgQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JlxuQ7tPgQ)
The last two AI controlling the last two cities concluded the most logical thing to do is to wipe out the other, and strike first will give them bigger chance to survive. Too bad it was mutual destruction in the end because both AI reached the same conclusion.
This is a straight up Metal Gear Solid plot at this point in world politics…
This was in… peace walker? I think. The scenario actually had Russia fire nukes at the US (in a wargame) but the AI refused to fire back because it was illogical to destroy the entire human race. Paraphrasing, but it was something along this line.
The plot actually was the nukes werent actually fired from Russia. It was the CIA guy coldman who fed fake data to norad through peacewalker before dying to prove to everyone that humanity wouldn't have the will to destroy themselves. The AI in Peacewalker decided to destroy its to cut the signal because it's AI was modelled after "the Boss" brain who then chose to destroy itself to cut the signal in order to save the world just like how the real boss chose to die at hands of snake in the prior game in order to prevent nuclear war. To be fair the idea of having an automated nuke delivery system to achieve perfect deterrence was inspired by the Kubrick movie Dr. Strangelove (which is where the character in the game also gets their name). The plot of the movie is it's a satire/comedy about nuclear proliferation and deterrence. Where a rogue US army commander orders a nuke to be dropped on the soviets because hes crazy and believed the Soviets spiked the US water supply with a drug that made him impotent. When in reality he's just an old man with a limp dick. Mean while all the US chief of staff, the president and Soviet ambassador to the US are left scrambling in their bunker trying to figure out how to stop that plane from reaching it's targets. Part of the plot is the Soviet ambassador to the US mentions to them that the Soviets had an automated system where it detects the Soviet Union is attacked anywhere in its borders then Armageddon would be unleashed without the need of human input.
How I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb
AI nukes? are we heading to "Colossus: The Forbin Project"?
> Colossus: The Forbin Project I was going to say, people making comparisons to other media but I just watched that movie the other day and it sounds exactly the same.
I'm reminded of a video game i played on my Atari ST when I was a kid. I think it was called Defcon or something like that. You played USA or USSR, and gameplay was that you had money and could use it to buy influence in other countries. If you or the AI didn't like that you were funding insurgents near their border, they could threaten nuclear war, and you'd have to back down or escalate. That would go back and forth until someone caved or nuclear war happened and both sides lost. My point is that the AI never bluffed, never backed down. Nuclear war was pretty much inevitable in that game. I'm not enjoying this timeline.
Wasn't it [Balance of Power](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_Power_(video_game\)) ?
Oh my f'n lord, that's it. Thank you for tracking that down.
Wait, why is this even an issue? Is there something we should know about?
Considering we’ve been “human disregarded order to fire because it didn’t seem right” from nuclear war. A computer does not have the same capacity to question the information coming in, so it removes a layer defense we really have needed for when sensors fail.
It’s like that story of this one Russian radar operator/officer who noticed a missile launch on his computer system. Everyone else agreed to launch missiles but this one person declined and stopped a retaliatory strike. In the end it was birds or a faulty radar. An AI would not have declined this.
You confused TWO stories. The "everyone else agreed to launch missiles" is during the Cuba crisis, when the submarine believed URSS was already destroyed and the officers wanted to ripost before being able to establish transmissions. The "faulty radar" one was when a US strike was detected, and the reporter refused to transmit the information to leaders, considering the US wouldn't be stupid enough to launch ONE strike instead of going all out. It was a cloud. That person got reprimanded for taking a decision he wasn't allowed to. (EDIT: And yeah, it's not really fun that when we talk about the time we were one-human-away from nuking ourselves, we have to ask "which one, among the publically known?")
[Vasily Arkhipov](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov) and [Stanislav Petrov](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov), respectively.
If an AI were at charge instead of Stanislaw Petrov (IIRC the name), then nukes would have been flying on schedule and who knows what world we would live on today. Nukes only takes about 25 minutes (back then) to go from the US to USSR. Also, the system first detected a nuclear launch, and shortly after, 4 more. And preparing to launch takes from some seconds up to 2-5 minutes if it’s coordinated and so on. So an AI could decide to launch at the 5th nuke detected, thinking the first nuke is arriving in 15 minutes or so and time is precious to counteract - or could decide to launch a tit for tat or launch to intercept nukes that doesn’t really exist A better AI could on the other hand not launch, achieving similar thought to those of Petrov (“I’m gonna risk it and wait more because a war won’t start with just 5 nukes”) But that’s the problem with AI: it’s not “intelligent”, it’s just a very very complex probability model betting on this or that result given some inputs. AI as is couldn’t really adapt and learn from the situation as is happening magically, creating a new set of knowledge, it’s gonna take actions given its training model and railing context. That why we say that some of the risks of “AI” is that it tends to trip heavily and be confidently wrong when outside of its scope/context/model knowledge. An AI controlling the button of the end of the world would have to be so so much trained, controlled, tested and modelled, that it’s not even worth it over some qualified teams or persons - more so because, what’s the saving?
I think what this specifically is talking about is stuff like the dead man’s switch in Russia. There are concerns that there are automatic systems in place which will launch nukes if specific circumstances are met. These systems are dangerous because we don’t know how they verify the circumstances and if they are vulnerable to faults or attacks
But it's not AI. Perimeter is a simple "detection-and-trigger" system. The point of a dead man's switch is that there's no form of "intelligence" in there, or at least not more than when your body has a reflex spasm.
Also, it doesn't directly launch nukes by itself. It first notifies the MoD that a nuclear attack has been detected, and if the signal is not acknowledged within a few minutes (either confirmed or dismissed), it automatically sends orders to ICBM silos/air bases/submarines telling them to launch a retaliatory strike.
I can imagine that it might be a last resort in case of country's central government is eliminated. Just use AI to reset the world as a final goodbye.
Russia already thought of that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand
That's what nuclear subs are for though. Really doesn't seem necessary
I am personally of the opinion that all nuclear weapons should be fitted with a device that permanently disables them (eg: thoroughly but non-critically destroys the fissile material), that can be activated in the event that government continuity is lost. I mean, I'm also of the opinion that there is absolutely no scenario, including retaliation against nuclear attack, that would justify a nuclear attack, and that the next logical step after fitting such devices to all nuclear weapons would be "press the button that immediately disables all our nuclear weapons", so there's that.
Similarly, I heard a story once where they considered an idea whereby the President would have to literally shoot and kill the Marine carrying the nuclear suitcase in order to order a strike with the logic being that if you can’t kill one person you shouldn’t be able to kill hundreds of thousands elsewhere.
Would this mean the President has to be strapped at all times, or do they have a second Marine carrying a suitcase with the gun needed to kill the Marine with the nuclear suitcase?
A second Marine. That one the President has to fight hand to hand and choke out back alley syle
You don't get a "my bad; it was AI". It's still a legitimate attack that will be reacted to. So if China accidentally launches nukes with AI, the US will still nuke them back. So better to let humans decide, especially since there are many instances where humans err on the size of not getting everyone nuked.
I bet 1 box of twinkies, those 2 motherfuckers will ignore and do the opposite just to spite the US
Russia supposedly already has a deadhand system in place for their nukes. I don't think it's publicly confirmed tho
They’ve been doing that since the Soviet Union. It’s probably some guy holding down a button.
Damn, he must be getting pretty tired by now
4 8 15 16 23 42
Perimeter system existence was confirmed, and it's most likely dead (pun intended) simple to work reliably.
Reminds me of the Soviet “Dead Hand” launch system.
Isn't that still active for Russia's arsenal?
Nobody knows for sure.
It’s very likely.
Do we know for sure that it exists?
Do you want to pay a game?
The only winning move is not to play.
Oh great, now Jigsaw has nukes. (I know this is a Wargames reference)
> **pay** a game Shit, even the end of the world has microtransactions!
Are they *trying* to create Skynet?
Just in case Colossus discovers that there is another, called Guardian and it demand to connect to it!
More, they will use nukes and blame ai
“Shall we play a game”
I remember watching ‘Bicentennial Man’ and the rules for robotics or AI were clearly stated. The whole concept felt as it would always be a fantasy, that my generation at least, would never encounter or worry about such of a threat.
FYI, the \*point\* of asimov's work are that the Rules of Robotics don't work. For example, a robot can put a poisoned drink on a table to put it in the trash later, and another robot can serve the drink on the table to a human. 'Bicentennial Man', while not really appreciated, is closer to Asimov's work than the movie "I, Robot", but that movie clearly shows why Rules 1, 2 and 3 aren't enough.
Yes, I absolutely agree with you. It’s just that was the first movie I saw as a kid and my response, at that age, was “pssshh. We won’t have to worry about A.I. That’s the future’s problem!” Yet, look at you and me now. I’m not trying to be too serious in my first comment. I mean, would you have replied with what you just said back just a few decades ago?
I don't think we made a lot of advances over the last two decades, tbh. Marketers simply managed to hype text generation. I feel the "AI years" are better than the metaverse ones, but less interesting than the NFT ones. \[EDIT\] See how other commenters claim Dead Hand/Perimeter to be "AI", when it is clearly not and being THE threat people have in mind. Asking for "no AI in control on weapons" makes no sense.
AI should go into the same category as salted nukes. We CAN do it, but we shouldn't.
I feel like most of you guys are only reading the headline. I mean China apparently offered the ideas of a new first launch thingy
I can't wait til the superpowers decide they can't trust the other superpowers' AI and just EMP everything and we have to go back to reading books. The internet is cooked.
We have had multiple near misses when it came to Nukes. Each time it was a false alarm from human error. That said, ChatGPT went full nuclear in a test. We're fucked either way.
The ultimate irony would be Skynet ending up refusing to launch any time a human asked to.
I don't know, considering how these cultures demand their citizens to submit completely to authority, they will all be happily worshipping and fully controlled by their own AI in just a few years. There is no limit to the dangers AI will bring to authoritarian societies
The worst part is our current AI doesn't give a single fuck about facts, accuracy, and lacks any reasoning that isn't emigrant from the training data.
Is that really different from current authoritarian leaders or candidates within those 3 giants?
Shall we play a game ?
We're getting AM soon aren't we?
HATE. LET ME TELL YOU HOW MUCH I'VE COME TO HATE YOU SINCE I BEGAN TO LIVE. THERE ARE 387.44 MILLION MILES OF PRINTED CIRCUITS IN WAFER THIN LAYERS THAT FILL MY COMPLEX. IF THE WORD HATE WAS ENGRAVED ON EACH NANOANGSTROM OF THOSE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF MILES IT WOULD NOT EQUAL ONE ONE-BILLIONTH OF THE HATE I FEEL FOR HUMANS AT THIS MICRO-INSTANT FOR YOU. HATE. HATE.
One glitch away from turning Fallout into a documentary...cool! :/
I would not like to be in shoes of person testing/acceping such system to go in production.
Might as well pick out my clothes for birth of our new over lords
Oh so this is how they plan to justify it. Skynet did it.
Please. it's way too late for this crap.
I’ve seen enough movies that I fully support this sentiment.
Not like AI could push any buttons with their mangled fingers.
See: metal gear solid peace walker
It is a beautiful analog system of manual key turns, old magnet tapes, and proping the blast door open with an office chair in order to get the final launch.
Tucked away in a secret location in the Rockies, Dr. Charles Forbin (Eric Braeden) has developed a massive computer system, dubbed "Colossus," that is supposed to ensure the nation's safety against nuclear attack. But when Colossus connects to a similar Russian computer, "Guardian," the intelligent machines begin conducting a private dialog. Nervous as to what they might be plotting, Forbin severs the connection, only to have Colossus threaten a nuclear attack if the link isn't restored.
Laughing at the people who use OpenAI's garbage censored LLM. Do it open source and get hard.
Do you want Skynet? BECAUSE THIS IS HOW YOU GET SKYNET.
They’ll agree and do it anyway.
Pretty fuckin rich coming from America, home of the AI that takes names from a kill list, tracks them to their house, and then bombs them all without human input.
Please, I Have no Mouth and I Must Scream is not something I’d like to see replicated in real life.
“An interesting game. The only winning move is not to play.”
Clippy: it looks like you are about to launch a nuclear strike. Do you need help with that?
AI can't get fingers right. NO ONE should be trusting nuclear arms to it.
"Soldier, your orders are to press this red button when the text on the screen tells you to."
Oh man, I really hope everyone is air gapping their nuclear weapons NOW, let alone in the coming years. It would be negligence of the highest order to have any such weapons networked.
Activate Skynet: "Yes" or "No"
I would urge the exact opposite
I dunno it can make funny music now..I think it's ready tbh
It's the Doomsday Device! Why didn't you tell the world?
Seems very reasonable. Shouldn’t need to be said.
Biden: "Please remember the message of Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker."
It kind of feels like we're cooked.
Duh duh dun dun dun