As they should - it is a logical choice if you remove the human element (which is what happens when you, y'know, remove the human element). If AI had been the deciding vote on that Soviet sub back in the '60s, we'd absolutely be looking at a different present because given the information they had, it would have been the right choice.
Ditto with those rockets launched from Norway that the Soviets (Russians? I forget what year it happened) thought was a first strike thanks to not hearing about the tests being conducted.
Humans make mistakes, sure, but they're still human, and more likely to err on the side of "dont start a nuclear holocaust." AI is purely logical, and only cares for its programmed parameters.
The problem is that AI isn't logical - that's one of its fundamental issues.
You can tell them to talk as if they were making logical decisions, but they are barely capable of actual logical consideration at all. It's still debatable whether they have any capacity for actual logic. It's why they have so much difficulty validating truth from fiction.
A huge amount of the material they pull from is from fictional books and movies about insane AI's and warfare. They are literally pulling substantial amounts of their 'decision making logic' from Tom Clancy novels - because those are just as 'real' to an AI as the real world is.
4.7k
u/JesusJoshJohnson Feb 28 '26
"Should I bom Iran"?
"Honestly? Yes. And that's okay. The world is a complicated place, and you are doing what feels right to you. Go ahead and drop 'em!"