[roenxi]

Also; it is obvious when someone uses a nuke. There is a big crater and a mushroom cloud + lots of radiation. It isn't half as obvious that someone is using an AI, particularly once they start to obscure it. If a military campaign is executed with apparently superhuman efficiency, does that mean AI was involved or just that the people involved were good? There'll always be plausible deniability if it matters.

People underestimate just how bad human management is; we haven't had an improvement on it to date apart from some mathematical techniques but even just getting the basics right consistently would probably give an army a big advantage if they work anything like a more standard corporation. Which they will; there are no magic techniques to be more capable when guns are involved. A superintelligence could probably win just by being demanding about getting basic questions answered like "Is there a strategic objective here? Is it advantageous to my side if that objective is achieved? Can it reasonably be achieved with the capabilities I have?" and not acting when the answer is no. That'd put it ahead of the military operations the US has been involved in this century. Bam, military superintelligence with plausible deniability.

[aleph_minus_one]

> People underestimate just how bad human management is; we haven't had an improvement on it to date apart from some mathematical techniques but even just getting the basics right consistently would probably give an army a big advantage if they work anything like a more standard corporation.

Don't overestimate the efficiency of civil big organisations (what you call "standard corporation[s]") - they have the same kind of problems.

[ok_dad]

First you have to get officers willing to follow an AI.