Raw LLM Responses

The clip was cool but it's filled with inaccurate or naively stupid claims. 1) AI being a third revolution in military affairs: A lot of things have been described as the coming third revolution in warfare so far none of the speculations have panned out. I mean previously computers where hailed as such and it didn't change anything. 2) Competition for AI superiority is the most likely cause for ww3. I know I'll step on toes here but: Musk is overrated as an expert. Wars are not caused by weapons but by policy. The most likely cause for ww3 would either be Chinese expansionism coupled with increased resource scarcity. Or Russian revanchism which has taken it to the point of invading several neighbouring countries and put them in direct conflict with both the EU and NATO. In short the coming resource scarcity coupled with ideological and political goals is going to cause ww3. 3) Drones are diminishing nuclear deterrence. Well yes but new technology has always been diminishing nuclear deterrence it's why the nuclear powers are always updating their arsenals. 4) Autonomous weapons would be cheap to massproduce. Well if they're cheap to massproduce then there's not going to be any ban. I mean the AK-47 is cheap to massproduce so it's in every conflict in every country all over the world. Couple this with the fact that (As they later claim) civilians are way ahead of the military in AI research and that means there's no stopping this train. 5) The weapons could be extremely effective at assassination. Yes on all points but that's not an argument against developing AI. Cars are extremely effective for assassinations. You get a simple bomb put it in a car and then drive it up to a target and blow it up, imagine the ramifications as we're researching how to make cars selfdriving. I don't see Musk stopping the development of self driving cars now do we? 6) Nuclear weapons brought the world close to world war 3. This seems to contradict their point 3. Anyway nuclear deterrence has prevented ww3 everytime since what causes war is not the weapons but the policy. NATO and the WP both had nuclear deterrence which is why the Russians never sent their tanks towards the English channel. 7) We believe that a ban that is difficult to enforce is better than a world flooded with cheap atonomous weapons. First off the ban would be impossible to enforce. Especially in todays world where Russian, EU, Chinese, and American policy goals is in competition with each other. And like when a bunch of countries got together and banned personel mines all that resulted in was that my country now has a significant weakness in defense (My army is completely focused on defense btw) while our most likely future enemy, Russia, never banned the weapon. Or when we banned clustermunitions, it meant that we had to destroy a bunch of good hightech weapons while the Russians simply kept developing the weapons. In a future conflict we've tied one arm on our back because we've banned a bunch of weapons that our potential enemies haven't banned. From Lord of the Rings: “The women of this country learned long ago, those without swords can still die upon them.” The same is true in reality. Just because you've banned a weapon does not mean that you won't fall victim to it. I mean people were angry as hell when Russian shitposting on social media influenced the US election so how about in 50 or 100 years time a Russian navy sails into New York armed with the latest weaponry and start dictating terms for US surrender. And the US has to simply accept the terms given because they have absolutely nothing to counter these weapons. If it sounds unreasonable to you it's because you don't study history. It's exactly what happened to both China and Japan. China was a more advanced country than any European country but they decided to turn inwards and isolate themselves from the world. This meant that technologically they stagnated and so when the British arrived eventhough they were massively outnumbered by the Chinese they still defeated the Chinese and could dictate terms which disfavoured the Chinese. A similar thing happened with Japan when they isolated themselves and even banned gunpowder (What this video calls the first revolution). And some 200 years later the US rolled into Japanese harbours with iron ships armed with gunpowder cannons. When they brought out their arsenal they had swords, spears, and a few matchlock muskets. So the Japanese too had to surrender unconditionally to foreign invaders. So if we stop developing this new technology who will we and our children serve under in 100 years? The Russians? The Chinese? Some form of Islamic state?