It had never occurred to me until I read The Age of AI<\/i> that what differentiates AI from HI \u2013 human intelligence \u2013 is that even the most brilliant human chess player rules out ex ante certain moves that involve very high sacrifice. But AlphaZero plays chess \u201cwithout reflection or volition, with strict adherence to the rules\u201d. It is unbeatable partly because it has inferred from the rules certain tactics \u2013 and hence, cumulatively, a strategy \u2013 that HI would never consider.<\/p>\n
The other obvious difference is that AI is much, much faster than HI. As the authors note, \u201cAn AI \u2026 scanning for targets follows its own logic, which may be inscrutable to an adversary and unsusceptible to traditional signals and feints \u2013 and which will, in most cases, proceed faster than the speed of human thought\u201d. The idea of an AI program waging war, rather than playing chess, with the same ruthlessness and speed is deeply frightening. No doubt DeepMind is already working on AlphaHero. One imagines with a shudder the programme sacrificing entire armies or armadas as readily as its chess-playing predecessor sacrificed its queen. No doubt the reader should feel reassured that the United States has committed itself to develop only \u201cAI-enabled weapons\u201d, as opposed to \u201cAI weapons \u2026 that make lethal decisions autonomously from human operators\u201d. \u201cCreated by humans, AI should be overseen by humans\u201d, the authors declare. But why should America\u2019s undemocratic adversaries exercise the same restraint? Inhuman intelligence sounds like the natural ally of regimes that are openly contemptuous of human rights.<\/p>\n
If the foe of the future is literally inhuman as well as inhumane, how shall we be able to defend ourselves? The varieties of deterrence that evolved during the first Cold War, up to and including Mutually Assured Destruction, seem unlikely to apply to AI war. Because, unlike nuclear weapons, AI will be widely used in multiple ways and at multiple scales, \u201cthe achievement of mutual strategic restraint \u2026 will be more difficult than before\u201d. That seems an understatement. I have thought for some time that there may simply be no deterrence in the areas of cyberwar and information warfare.<\/p>\n
We are left with only two possibilities. \u201cFor nations\u201d, the authors note, \u201cdisconnection could become the ultimate form of defense.\u201d This makes sense. The past five years have vividly revealed the dangers of a hyperconnected world. Without effective circuit-breakers that sever network links at the first indication of hazardous contagion, we are as vulnerable to cyberattack as we were to fake news in 2016 or a novel pathogen in 2020.<\/p>\n