[itishappy]

That's exactly what I'd expect to happen, but I suspect we may have different definitions of "rapidly" here. Aerospace development requires building and testing stuff, and AI can only help so much there.

Regardless, we're back to MAD doctrines again. How many and how effective are your interceptors? How many nukes do you expect to be launched? What's your tolerance for failure? Margins for error are slim and consequences are rather dire.

[catigula]

I think you've made reasonably good points. My least favorite aspect of discussing AI is the undercurrent that we're monkeys discussing the Sistine chapel. Ultimately, it's difficult to engage with the concept of superior intelligence.

Generally I think the outline that such a device would be a doomsday scenario for competitors remains quite plausible. This is somewhat easy to falsify because we would start seeing direct military action soon.

Taiwan especially is very vulnerable under this worldview and would be a pretty quick falsification.

[itishappy]

I agree entirely. I think both our arguments are entirely within the real of possibility, and I don't have the faculty to gain much more confidence either way...

> My least favorite aspect of discussing AI is the undercurrent that we're monkeys discussing the Sistine chapel.

This resonates.