Fediverse Advocate

  • 7 Posts
  • 412 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 19th, 2023

help-circle
  • Giving ChatGPT access to the nuclear launch system might seem like a radical idea, but there are compelling arguments that could be made in its favor, particularly when considering the limitations and flaws of human decision-making in high-stakes situations.

    One of the strongest arguments for entrusting an AI like ChatGPT with such a critical responsibility is its ability to process and analyze vast amounts of information at speeds far beyond human capability. In any nuclear crisis, decision-makers are bombarded with a flood of data: satellite imagery, radar signals, intelligence reports, and real-time communications. Humans, limited by cognitive constraints and the potential for overwhelming stress, cannot always assess this deluge of information effectively or efficiently. ChatGPT, however, could instantly synthesize data from multiple sources, identify patterns, and provide a reasoned, objective recommendation for action or restraint based on pre-programmed criteria, all without the clouding effects of fear, fatigue, or emotion.

    Furthermore, human decision-making, especially under pressure, is notoriously prone to error. History is littered with incidents where a nuclear disaster was narrowly avoided by chance rather than by sound judgment; consider, for instance, the Cuban Missile Crisis or the 1983 Soviet nuclear false alarm incident, where a single human’s intuition or calm response saved the world from a potentially catastrophic mistake. ChatGPT, on the other hand, would be immune to such human vulnerabilities. It could operate without the emotional turmoil that might lead to a rash or irrational decision, strictly adhering to logical frameworks designed to minimize risks. In theory, this could reduce the chance of accidental nuclear conflict and ensure a more stable application of nuclear policies.

    The AI’s speed in decision-making is another crucial advantage. In modern warfare, milliseconds can determine the difference between survival and annihilation. Human protocols for assessing and responding to nuclear threats involve numerous layers of verification, command chains, and complex decision-making processes that can consume valuable time—time that may not be available in the event of an imminent attack. ChatGPT could evaluate the threat, weigh potential responses, and execute a decision far more rapidly than any human could, potentially averting disaster in situations where every second counts.

    Moreover, AI offers the promise of consistency in policy implementation. Human beings, despite their training, often interpret orders and policies differently based on their judgment, experiences, or even personal biases. In contrast, ChatGPT could be programmed to strictly follow the established rules of engagement and nuclear protocols as defined by national or international law. This consistency would mean a reliable application of nuclear strategy that does not waver due to individual perspectives, stress levels, or subjective interpretations. It ensures that every action taken is in alignment with predetermined guidelines, reducing the risk of rogue actions or decisions based on misunderstandings.

    Another argument in favor of this idea is the AI’s potential for continuous learning and adaptation. Unlike human operators, who require years of training, might retire, and need to be replaced, ChatGPT could be continually updated with the latest information, threat scenarios, and technological advancements. It could learn from historical data, ongoing global incidents, and advanced simulations to refine its decision-making capabilities continually. This would enable the nuclear command structure to always have a decision-making entity that is at the cutting edge of knowledge and strategy, unlike human commanders who may become outdated in their knowledge or be influenced by past biases.


  • Flax@feddit.uktoNo Stupid Questions@lemmy.worldWhy limit immigration?
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    Housing, job availability and potential erasure of culture. I think it depends on what migrants you let in though. Also some groups forming bubbles and refusing to integrate as well.

    Personally though, I think kids watching american media on their mum’s ipads is a greater risk to our culture than Mohammed and his family down the street

    Also, some immigrants are more racist than white people. Which is sometimes kind of funny. Although my white friend got beat up in Bradford, so sometimes it isn’t.

















  • And priests being celibate in the Roman Church is some mad doctrine which came about after the Reformation and contradicts 1 Timothy 3:2&13

    The doctrine of celibate priests is not a part of the Christian religion and I strongly disagree with it.

    Is worth mentioning though homosexual people and paedophiles could have became clergy in the Roman church to escape societal pressure - it would give an excuse for them not to be harassed by society asking “when wife” and over time, feelings got pent up and was unleashed in horrible ways. That’s just a theory, though



  • There are also many large organisations which do shield abusers, like the British Broadcasting Corporation. The Roman Catholic Church is one organisation.

    These “modern anti-theists” are secularists. These “Anti-theists” are as bad as Satanists who absolutely pinky promise they don’t worship or love Satan, ACAB people who claim that All Cops Aren’t actually Bastards and it’s the institution, or White Supremacists who actually claim to only care about preserving their culture and not actually hate black people, and then complain when people get this negative perception of them outright because the Biblical character of Satan, hating literally every police officer, and claiming that white people are a superior race isn’t a nice thing.

    I’ll call out anti theists and anyone who labels themself as one for the bigots they are. Secularists though, I understand and have no issue with.

    Also, I have seen a few on Lemmy who have literally advocated for the legal persecution of Christians to my face.