I’ll preface this by saying that I have never known war in my lifetime and that I absolutely don’t condone it.
That said, isn’t the point of war also that it’s horrible and barbaric? If war isn’t that anymore, won’t it be much more frequent and casually started as a result?
Again, I’m absolutely not saying it’s a good thing that war maims and kills people, but I see these side effects as a deterrent. There is a component of terror to it and that’s what makes it even worse.
If it’s enlisted professional killing each other, or even robots destroying each other, it can go on for much longer. And how do you determine the “winner” in that case if you can keep feeding robots into the fight, it’s never ending I’d think.
> That said, isn’t the point of war also that it’s horrible and barbaric? If war isn’t that anymore, won’t it be much more frequent and casually started as a result?
Yes (usually), to the first question. The second begs the question though.
Wars are destructive and enormously expensive. Only a tiny fraction of human leaders wielding a disproportionate amount of power have the agency to start wars, and they do so in order to pursue specific (but varied) objectives. Since the cost is high, no one does this lightly (even the "crazy" ones, because they would already have lost power if they weren't smart and calculating).
AI may provide avenues to enhance the efficacy of wars. It may also provide avenues to enhance other strategies to achieve those objectives. In all cases, we can expect AI will be used to further the objectives of those humans with the power to direct its development and applications.
It is therefore ludicrous and self-interested speculation to claim that AI will reduce death rates. Andreessen signals this with the preface "I even think" so that he can make the claim without any later accountability. The reality is, future wartime death rates may or may not decrease, but even if they do, we likely won't even be able to credibly attribute the change to AI versus all other changes to the global geopolitical environment.
That said, isn’t the point of war also that it’s horrible and barbaric?
Of course - that's precisely the point. The idea that any technical innovation can make it less so (or make war less likely) runs counter to all historical observation.
I'm not sure I agree with that. I don't think the _point_ of war is to be barbaric - that's a by-product of forceful expansion of power. Regardless of how killing another human is done in the context of conflict, it will always be considered barbaric, but the _point_ of the conflict isn't be maximise barbarism.
I think (and know very little, so could be wrong), that the purpose of war is to expand influence. This can take the form of access to new resources (whether that be land, access, air space, whatever) or to form a buffer between one country and another. There's probably other reasons, simply like ego in some cases.
There are other ways to expand powerbases too - such as China's heavy financial and infrastructure investment in Africa and South Pacific nations, or attempting to undermine another country's social structures. These are longer and harder to implement, but yield better results with practically no blood shed.
> That said, isn’t the point of war also that it’s horrible and barbaric?
No. The conqueror never wants war — he prefers to get what he wants without any resistance. It's only the defender who has to wage war to defend itself from aggression.
That said, isn’t the point of war also that it’s horrible and barbaric? If war isn’t that anymore, won’t it be much more frequent and casually started as a result?
Again, I’m absolutely not saying it’s a good thing that war maims and kills people, but I see these side effects as a deterrent. There is a component of terror to it and that’s what makes it even worse.
If it’s enlisted professional killing each other, or even robots destroying each other, it can go on for much longer. And how do you determine the “winner” in that case if you can keep feeding robots into the fight, it’s never ending I’d think.