Executive summary: The author argues that historical trends in conflict fatality rates are less reassuring about the offense-defense balance in hypothetical future AI conflicts than Maxwell Tabarrok claims.
Key points:
Deaths in conflict don’t directly measure the offense-defense balance, and territorial control may be more informative.
Temporary offense-dominance has often enabled states to conquer others, so stability isn’t key.
AI may not need to defend itself against human-wielded AI weapons.
The most destructive conflicts are getting more deadly over time, raising worst-case concerns.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, andcontact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: The author argues that historical trends in conflict fatality rates are less reassuring about the offense-defense balance in hypothetical future AI conflicts than Maxwell Tabarrok claims.
Key points:
Deaths in conflict don’t directly measure the offense-defense balance, and territorial control may be more informative.
Temporary offense-dominance has often enabled states to conquer others, so stability isn’t key.
AI may not need to defend itself against human-wielded AI weapons.
The most destructive conflicts are getting more deadly over time, raising worst-case concerns.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.