The desire for the powers that be to weaponize every technology ever developed has given rise to the threat of AI with regards to nuclear war without ever questioning why wars are fought in the first place.
The technology that goes into many of our basic household items such as microwaves, stereos, and even water hoses, has been weaponized through directed-energy microwave signals that can fry missile controls, long range acoustic devices and infrasonic devices that can “cause behavior changes at frequencies too low to be audible,” and water cannons that have been forceably dispersing crowds of protesters for decades.
Intelligence agencies in particular have been implemented in planning to weaponize everything from smart phones and TVs to the weather and even modern art.
If a technology exists, chances are it has been weaponized, and in many cases it was probably conceived by the military first before it ever became a commercial product (i.e. the internet, duct tape, and GPS).
It is with the same mentality that Artificial Intelligence (AI) is being weaponized, and a new report by the RAND Corporation says that even the perceived threat of AI with regards to nuclear warfare could be more dangerous than the technology itself.
“The effect of AI on nuclear strategy depends as much or more on adversaries’ perceptions of its capabilities as on what it can actually do,” the report reads.
This is based on the idea that was observed by Alfred T. Mahan in 1912 when he said, “force is never more operative than when it is known to exist but is not brandished.”
If a nation has the capability of using AI as part of a nuclear strategy, but does not intend use it, how can its adversary be sure?
Some of the main concerns surrounding AI in warfare, nuclear or otherwise, is that it makes pre-emptive strikes all the more likely and that AI could one day achieve superintelligence and will no longer controlled by humans.
Autonomous Superintelligence in Nuclear Warfare
“With superintelligence, AI would render the world unrecognizable and either save or destroy humanity in the process,” the RAND report states. However, experts still disagree about the national security implications of AI.
According to the RAND report, these experts fall into three categories, Complacents, Alarmists, and Subversionists:
- Complacents: these tend to believe that producing an AI capable of performing the types of tasks that would destabilize the nuclear balance is sufficiently difficult that it is unlikely to be achieved.
- Alarmists: these hold the opposite view, that an AI could be capable of certain tasks but should not be included in any aspect of nuclear war.
- Subversionists: these focus on an adversary’s ability to alter, mislead, divert, or otherwise trick the AI, which could prove either stabilizing or destabilizing.
Some experts go as far as to suggest that “a future AI system could essentially be the arms control regime, monitoring compliance and adjudicating violations without human input.”
The idea of an AI superintelligence is one that is considered, but also one that is usually dismissed in the AI and military defense communities.
“Superintelligence does not seem to be viewed as imminent or inevitable by the majority of experts in AI, but many supporters believe it merits attention because of the extreme nature of its costs and benefits, even if the likelihood of its occurrence is low.”
The RAND report concluded that “AI has significant potential to upset the foundations of nuclear stability and undermine deterrence by the year 2040, especially in the increasingly multipolar strategic environment.”
- One thing that was made perfectly clear is that nobody can predict which scenario will come true:
- the benign AI that is completely under control of humans,
- the AI that is used as an adviser but is incapable of action,
- the perceived threat of AI being used for nuclear war by a government that has no intention of using it by its fearful adversaries, or
- the pre-emptive superintelligence that has no regards for deterrence but will start a nuclear war on its own accords.
The least terrible outcome, according to the report, is one where “if the nuclear powers manage to establish a form of strategic stability compatible with the emerging capabilities that AI might provide, the machines could reduce distrust and alleviate international tensions, thereby decreasing the risk of nuclear war.”
All things considered, the one question that nobody ever asks is, “Why are wars fought?” Most concentrate on how to stop war, how to prevent war, or how to win wars, but the answer to question that resides in the deepest chambers of the human heart rarely surfaces because people are not willing to search within their own souls to find the answers that they already possess.
Lets take look at the first scenario about pre-emptive strikes, followed by superintelligences, and finally a look into why wars are fought.
Effects of AI on nuclear strategies, weaponizing tech, and why wars are fought [The Sociable]