Separately, it seems like a 4 year lead in nuclear weapons would represent a decisive strategic advantage, which is much shorter than any other technology. My best guess is that a 2 year lead wouldn’t do it, but I’d love to hear an assessment of the situation from someone who understands the relevant history/technology better than I do.
The US had a 4 year lead in nuclear weapons. The US tested its first nuclear weapon on July 16 1945. The Soviet Union tested its first nuclear weapon on August 29 1949. That is 4 years, 1 month and 13 days during which the US had a complete monopoly on nuclear weapons. Yet, during that time, the US did not and could not have used its nuclear weapons to assert superiority over the Soviet Union.
The US weapons of that era were all roughly in the 20kt range, and even as late as 1948, the US arsenal was less than 100 bombs. The delivery mechanism for these bombs were B-29 and B-36 bombers, which were relatively slow compared to the new jet-powered fighters and interceptors of the late ’40s and early ’50s. It’s not clear that the US would have been able to drop a single nuclear bomb on the Soviet Union during that time, much less enough bombs to seriously dent a well-functioning industrial economy.
This gets at an important distinction between physical goods and software. With physical goods, there is often a long delay between invention and mass production. The US invented nuclear bombs in 1945. But it wasn’t able to mass-produce them until after 1950. This is different from AI (and software products more generally) for which mass production is trivial, once the code has been written. It is for this reason that I do not think that nuclear bombs are a good analogy for AI risk.
The US had a 4 year lead in nuclear weapons. The US tested its first nuclear weapon on July 16 1945. The Soviet Union tested its first nuclear weapon on August 29 1949. That is 4 years, 1 month and 13 days during which the US had a complete monopoly on nuclear weapons. Yet, during that time, the US did not and could not have used its nuclear weapons to assert superiority over the Soviet Union.
The US weapons of that era were all roughly in the 20kt range, and even as late as 1948, the US arsenal was less than 100 bombs. The delivery mechanism for these bombs were B-29 and B-36 bombers, which were relatively slow compared to the new jet-powered fighters and interceptors of the late ’40s and early ’50s. It’s not clear that the US would have been able to drop a single nuclear bomb on the Soviet Union during that time, much less enough bombs to seriously dent a well-functioning industrial economy.
This gets at an important distinction between physical goods and software. With physical goods, there is often a long delay between invention and mass production. The US invented nuclear bombs in 1945. But it wasn’t able to mass-produce them until after 1950. This is different from AI (and software products more generally) for which mass production is trivial, once the code has been written. It is for this reason that I do not think that nuclear bombs are a good analogy for AI risk.
The AIs still have to make atoms move for anything Actually Bad to happen.
There’s a lot of Actually Bad things an AI can do just by making electrons move.
(or the AIs have to at least make atoms fall apart #atomicbombs #snark)