[reddog]

von Neumann also advocated for an immediate, surprise U.S. nuclear first strike on the Soviet Union: “If you say why not bomb them tomorrow, I say why not today? If you say today at 5 o’clock, I say why not one o’clock?”. According to game theory you see, it was only rational.

The genius's genius.

[keiferski]

Yes, the genius hero worship can be tiring. The man was intelligent, no doubt – but that doesn’t seem to have translated into any real world ethical understanding. A good example of why “meritocratic” systems based on raw intelligence probably don’t lead to wise outcomes.

[latency-guy2]

> but that doesn’t seem to have translated into any real world ethical understanding.

Why? Ethics gets muddy, inconsistent, and nonsensical quite quickly and I am not so certain you have figured it all out compared to anyone else, so you'll find it hard for me to believe this position.

von Neumann may have had a certain game theory understanding of the world at the time, and you might as well in the opposite direction today, which one is correct is still up in the air and you won't know, and maybe in fact, you will never know.

von Neumann's fear was that nuclear war was inevitable and that the entire world would die from it should the communist parties of the world, especially the one that ran in the Soviet Union were maintained. I don't think he was far off given a few years after his death the Cuban missle crisis. Then the decades after with the US and Soviet Union clashing in various capacities and interfering respectively reducing each other's influence, or failing to do so. And today with the Soviet Union's successor.

[ookdatnog]

> von Neumann's fear was that nuclear war was inevitable

Ethics is messy, but in this case he made an actual, verifiable prediction: that the USSR would use their nuclear arsenal and unleash nuclear war. He said "With the Russians it is not a question of whether but of when." Not that we would come close to nuclear war, or that it would have a high probability that it would happen. He stated that it definitely would happen. And he stated this very confidently.

This prediction turned out to be false: the USSR collapsed before it used its nuclear arsenal aggressively, and modern Russia still has not used its nuclear arsenal in any other capacity than as a vague threat.

We can state unequivocally that he was wrong about this. Reality disproved his game-theoretic argument.

[peteradio]

> Reality disproved his game-theoretic argument.

Or maybe he was playing game with his statements. There is a sociological principle (I don't know what/if it has a name) of having an extreme take to rein in a lesser extreme. It can be very informative to see your own ideas taken to an extreme. There is also the impact of an enemy knowing how calculating/cynical you are towards them. I'd say Von Neumann was a hippies hippy by all accounts.

[tuyiown]

> von Neumann's fear

I'm glad we don't rely on a single man's fears, whatever are his genius and rationalizations.

[latency-guy2]

> I'm glad we don't rely on a single man's fears, whatever are his genius and rationalizations.

You have no idea how hollow this rhetoric is, especially when it comes to the numerous events that took place during the nuclear arms race. Just in the time period alone.

[keiferski]

I didn’t claim to be have more ethical understanding than he did, but frankly, if his reported positions on nuclear strikes were actually what he thought, then yes, I think I do.

You may think ethics is muddy and nonsensical, but guess what? So is reality. That’s the point. Reality is nuanced and more complex than a single human mind can comprehend. Extremely intelligent people (particularly at math and other abstract fields) often seem to not understand this, preferring to believe that their variation of game theory is accurate.

All I can say is that I’m extremely glad that Von Neumann was in no position to launch weapons. Analysis has its limits.

[latency-guy2]

> I didn’t claim to be have more ethical understanding than he did

You just made the same value claim against his position, twice. Your claim that you made no claim is a lie.

> All I can say is that I’m extremely glad that Von Neumann was in no position to launch weapons. Analysis has its limits.

Neumann was a part of the same council that launched nuclear weapons, twice.

[keiferski]

No, I made the claim that Von Neumann lacked ethical wisdom, if his reported positions are accurate. I didn’t say I had more ethical understanding. One can point out the flaws in something without involving oneself. This is…not complicated?

This is exactly the sort of criticism that arises from hero worship. “Who are you to criticize the genius?”

And no, a council did not launch nuclear weapons. They advised the president, who made the final decision.

[latency-guy2]

> No, I made the claim that Von Neumann lacked ethical wisdom

Based on what, exactly. Your claim is not provided amongst proof, just your beliefs, which is you, not from a position of authority. Your words betray your position especially since you followed from:

> > > The man was intelligent, no doubt – but that doesn’t seem to have translated into any real world ethical understanding. A good example of why “meritocratic” systems based on raw intelligence probably don’t lead to wise outcomes.

> > I didn’t claim to be have more ethical understanding than he did, but frankly, if his reported positions on nuclear strikes were actually what he thought, then yes, I think I do.

> I didn’t say I had more ethical understanding.

Its a straight line, and you admit to it, certainly not a position you invented out of thin air upon observation of stories that you read today.

> One can point out the flaws in something without involving oneself. This is…not complicated?

Nice, enjoy your belittlement, hope it tastes sweet.

> This is exactly the sort of criticism that arises from hero worship. “Who are you to criticize the genius?”

As long as we're putting words in other peoples mouths, "I always make the right decisions" is not something you can really defend here.

> And no, a council did not launch nuclear weapons. They advised the president, who made the final decision.

So, what exactly was the council for then? Von Neumann is a pivotal part of all things nuclear at the time, do explain how he is NOT responsible for any deaths.

[batushka3]

Living in once soviet ocupied country, I would rather taken nukes. The Great chance to erase the malignance missed.

[viciousvoxel]

It's a bit funny to imagine him as so sophomoric that he really thought this was the optimal game-theoretic strategy, which is true only in the most simplistic scenario.

[jandrese]

Reading that passage I’m not sure if he wasn’t just pointing out a danger of game theory simplifications leading people to absurd conclusions.

[skrebbel]

It’s well established that von Neumann wanted to kill millions of people (in the USSR), and would’ve done so had he been given the chance. That quote is not an isolated case. He was a genius with no respect for human life, he was so blindly opposed to totalitarianism of all kinds that he thought no amount of collateral damage would be too much.

[EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK]

By the time of him writing this, totalitarianism killed 50 million people. After he wrote this, totalitarianism killed tens of millions more. Right now totalitarianism kills hundreds of thousands and is very likely on path to kill millions. So looks like he was on point with his math, again.

[matthewdgreen]

I don't know when von Neumann gave this advice (he died in 1957), but estimates of the death toll from a nuclear war in the late 1950s ranged into the hundreds of millions, and that's only from the war itself and not the lives (and opportunities) lost in the aftermath. https://thebulletin.org/2023/01/cold-war-estimates-of-deaths...