In mid -July, the Nobel prizes met at the University of Chicago to listen to nuclear war experts speak of the end of the world. In sessions closed for two days, scientists, former government officials and retired military personnel illuminated the prizes for the most devastating weapons ever created. The goal was to educate some of the most respected people in the world on one of the most horrible weapons ever made and, in the end, the loose -ups make political recommendations to world leaders on how to avoid nuclear war.
The IA was in everyone’s mind. “We are entering a new world of artificial intelligence and emerging technologies that influence our daily life, but also influencing the nuclear world in which we live”. Scott SaganA professor of Stanford known for his research on nuclear disarmament, he said during a press conference at the end of the talks.
It is a statement that assumes the inevitability of the governments that mix for nuclear and weapons, something I believed all those with which I spoke to Chicago.
“It’s like electricity,” he says Bob LatiffA major general of the US Air Force and a member of the Bulletin of the Committee for the science and safety of atomic scientists. “He will find his way in everything.” Latiff is one of the people who help create the judgment day watch every year.
“The conversation su Ai and Nukes is hindered by a couple of serious problems. The first is that nobody really knows what IA is,” says Jon Wolfsthal, an expert in non -proliferation that is the director of global risk at the Federation of American scientists and was previously assistant to Barack Obama.
“What does it mean to give the artificial intelligence control of a nuclear weapon? What does it mean to give a [computer chip] Control of a nuclear weapon? “He asks Herb LinProfessor of Stanford and Alume of the Doomsday Clock. “Part of the problem is that large linguistic models have taken on the debate.”
First of all, the good news. Nobody thinks that Chatgpt or Grok will receive nuclear codes at any time soon. Wolfsthal tells me that there are many “theological” differences between nuclear experts, but that they are united on that front. “In this kingdom, almost everyone says that we want effective human control over the decision -making process of nuclear weapons,” he says.
However, Wolfsthal listened to whispers of other uses concerning LLM in the heart of American power. “A number of people said:” Well, look, all I want to do is to have an interactive computer available for the president so you can understand what Putin or XI will do and I can produce that set of data in a very reliable way. I can get everything that XI or Putin has ever said and written on anything and having a statistically high probability to reflect what Putin said “”, he says.