Nuclear experts say that mixing artificial intelligence and nuclear weapons is inevitable

People who Ticket Nuclear war For a living, it is certain that artificial intelligence will soon increase deadly weapons. None of them is completely sure, which means exactly.

In mid -July, Nobel Prize winners gathered at the University of Chicago to listen to nuclear war experts talking about the end of the world. In closed sessions for two days, former retired government and military officials and military personnel enlightened the weapons of the most destructive weapons that were ever created. The goal was to educate some of the most respectable people in the world about one of the most terrifying weapons ever, and ultimately, the holders make political recommendations to world leaders on how to avoid nuclear war.

Amnesty International was in the mind of everyone. “We are entering a new world of artificial intelligence and emerging techniques that affect our daily life, but also affect the nuclear world in which we live,” Scott SaganA professor at Stanford, who is known for his research in nuclear disarmament, said at a press conference at the end of the talks.

It is a statement that takes as it is, given the inevitability of governments that confuse artificial intelligence with nuclear weapons – which every person believes in in Chicago.

“It is like electricity,” he says Bob LatifRetired by the American Air Force Brigade and a member of the Science and Security Council for atomic scientists. “You will find her way to everything.” Latif is one of the people who help adjust the Day of Resurrection every year.

“The conversation on artificial intelligence and nuclear weapons is hindered by some major problems. The first is that no one really knows what artificial intelligence is,” says John Wolver, an expert of non -proliferation and a global risk manager at the Union of American Scholars.

“What does Amnesty International mean a nuclear weapon? Ask Herb LaneProfessor at Stanford and Doomsday Clock Alum. “Part of the problem is that large language models have taken care of the debate.”

First, good news. Nobody believes that Chatgpt or Grok will get nuclear symbols any time soon. Wolfsthal tells me that there are many “theological” differences between nuclear experts, but they are united in that front. “In this field, almost everyone says that we want effective human control over nuclear weapons decisions,” he says.

However, Wolfsthal heard whispers from others regarding the use of LLMS in the heart of the American power. “A number of people said,” Well, see, all I want to do is the presence of an interactive computer available to the president so that he can know what Putin or Shi will do and I can produce this data set very reliable. I can get everything that Shi or Putin said at all and wrote about anything and has a high statistically possibility contrary to what Putin said, “for example.