AIs keep recommending nuclear war

[ken_sylvania]

This week the nuclear anti- proliferation treaties with Russia expire, so for the first time in my life there are no limits on the amount of nuclear weapons on planet earth.

Were there limits previously? Or just pretend limits?

[JohnH]

This week the nuclear anti- proliferation treaties with Russia expire, so for the first time in my life there are no limits on the amount of nuclear weapons on planet earth.

Are you confident that all signatories to such treaties did in fact honor the limits?

I have even less confidence that the non-signatories to such treaties also honoured the limits.

[barnhart]

This week the nuclear anti- proliferation treaties with Russia expire, so for the first time in my life there are no limits on the amount of nuclear weapons on planet earth.

Are you confident that all signatories to such treaties did in fact honor the limits?

Not confident at all but the fact that both parties once saw reason to limit such things and no longer find it important seems salient.

[barnhart]

This week the nuclear anti- proliferation treaties with Russia expire, so for the first time in my life there are no limits on the amount of nuclear weapons on planet earth.

Were there limits previously? Or just pretend limits?

There were quite a lot dismantled.

[JohnH]

There were quite a lot dismantled.

The U.S. and former Soviet Union both had a desire to spend a lot less money on arms so they could spend it on other things (such as oligarchs robbing the country blind, social programs to buy votes, and so forth).

It seems both countries have discovered that conventional war is a lot cheaper.

[Szdfan]

There were quite a lot dismantled.

The U.S. and former Soviet Union both had a desire to spend a lot less money on arms so they could spend it on other things (such as oligarchs robbing the country blind, social programs to buy votes, and so forth).

It seems both countries have discovered that conventional war is a lot cheaper.

But we’re not talking about conventional war. Nuclear Weapons are weapons of mass destruction and therefore by definition not conventional.

[Szdfan]

This week the nuclear anti- proliferation treaties with Russia expire, so for the first time in my life there are no limits on the amount of nuclear weapons on planet earth.

Were there limits previously? Or just pretend limits?

There were quite a lot dismantled.

START and START II are considered to have been effective.

[Bootstrap]

Were there limits previously? Or just pretend limits?

There were quite a lot dismantled.

START and START II are considered to have been effective.

Look at the alternative. What we have now is definitely less stable. Tough talk is not a foreign policy, and it can lead to escalation.

[Jazman]

A friend of mine has the time and will to dig deep into technocratic issues involving Ai, Musk, Silicone Valley, global elites, etc... Here's a recent post from his blog. "Palantir's 22-point Manifesto"
If any of this is possible or nearing us, what should we then do? What can we do? Can a Jesus-centered Anabaptist faith help us? Are there parts of Christianity who will be bamboozled by these guys or more inclined to miss being aware of these developments, therefore being surprised and overtaken?

[R7ehr]

A friend of mine has the time and will to dig deep into technocratic issues involving Ai, Musk, Silicone Valley, global elites, etc... Here's a recent post from his blog. "Palantir's 22-point Manifesto"
If any of this is possible or nearing us, what should we then do? What can we do? Can a Jesus-centered Anabaptist faith help us? Are there parts of Christianity who will be bamboozled by these guys or more inclined to miss being aware of these developments, therefore being surprised and overtaken?

Taking these ideas in isolation and at face value, here are my initial thoughts.

I think these are good:

9. We should show far more grace towards those who have subjected themselves to public life. The eradication of any space for forgiveness—a jettisoning of any tolerance for the complexities and contradictions of the human psyche—may leave us with a cast of characters at the helm we will grow to regret.

10. The psychologization of modern politics is leading us astray. Those who look to the political arena to nourish their soul and sense of self, who rely too heavily on their internal life finding expression in people they may never meet, will be left disappointed.

11. Our society has grown too eager to hasten, and is often gleeful at, the demise of its enemies. The vanquishing of an opponent is a moment to pause, not rejoice.

Number 4 and number 16 seem to be in tension.

4. The limits of soft power, of soaring rhetoric alone, have been exposed. The ability of free and democratic societies to prevail requires something more than moral appeal. It requires hard power, and hard power in this century will be built on software.

16. We should applaud those who attempt to build where the market has failed to act. The culture almost snickers at Musk’s interest in grand narrative, as if billionaires ought to simply stay in their lane of enriching themselves . . . . Any curiosity or genuine interest in the value of what he has created is essentially dismissed, or perhaps lurks from beneath a thinly veiled scorn.

Number 20 is good.

20. The pervasive intolerance of religious belief in certain circles must be resisted. The elite’s intolerance of religious belief is perhaps one of the most telling signs that its political project constitutes a less open intellectual movement than many within it would claim.