As the last major nuclear arms treaty between the US and Russia expired on February 5, experts are scrambling to find a new way to monitor the world's nukes. While some see it as an opportunity to replace outdated treaties with a more modern approach, others warn that relying solely on satellite surveillance and artificial intelligence is a step too far.
The idea being floated by researchers like Matt Korda of the Federation of American Scientists is to use existing infrastructure to negotiate and enforce new treaties. No country wants "on-site inspectors roaming around on their territory," Korda says. So, failing that, the world's nuclear powers can use satellites and other remote sensors to monitor the world's nuclear weapons remotely.
AI and machine-learning systems would then take that data, sort it, and turn it over for human review. But experts like Sara Al-Sayed of the Union of Concerned Scientists are sounding the alarm on the potential pitfalls of this approach. "You have to build these bespoke datasets for each country," Korda says, highlighting the need for large amounts of training data to create effective AI systems.
However, Al-Sayed notes that even with a well-curated dataset, AI systems can be complex and unpredictable. "There's an inherent stochasticity of these techniques, starting from the process of curating the data...and then the lack of explainability," she says.
Moreover, AI systems are not foolproof and can fail to detect certain anomalies or make mistakes that could lead to false positives or false negatives. Al-Sayed emphasizes the need for transparency and trustworthiness in these systems, asking, "How can we make the machines themselves trustworthy?"
While some see this approach as a bridge to a better world, others are concerned about the potential risks and limitations of relying solely on satellite surveillance and AI. "A successor to New START is not going to put us on the path towards disarmament," Korda says. Instead, it's just a stopgap measure that can help prevent a real spiral into hundreds more additional nuclear weapons being deployed.
In the end, the debate over the future of nuclear arms control will require careful consideration of the pros and cons of this new approach. While satellite surveillance and AI may be a step in the right direction, experts warn that they are not a replacement for human judgment and oversight. As one expert put it, "You can't just rely on machines to do the job."
The idea being floated by researchers like Matt Korda of the Federation of American Scientists is to use existing infrastructure to negotiate and enforce new treaties. No country wants "on-site inspectors roaming around on their territory," Korda says. So, failing that, the world's nuclear powers can use satellites and other remote sensors to monitor the world's nuclear weapons remotely.
AI and machine-learning systems would then take that data, sort it, and turn it over for human review. But experts like Sara Al-Sayed of the Union of Concerned Scientists are sounding the alarm on the potential pitfalls of this approach. "You have to build these bespoke datasets for each country," Korda says, highlighting the need for large amounts of training data to create effective AI systems.
However, Al-Sayed notes that even with a well-curated dataset, AI systems can be complex and unpredictable. "There's an inherent stochasticity of these techniques, starting from the process of curating the data...and then the lack of explainability," she says.
Moreover, AI systems are not foolproof and can fail to detect certain anomalies or make mistakes that could lead to false positives or false negatives. Al-Sayed emphasizes the need for transparency and trustworthiness in these systems, asking, "How can we make the machines themselves trustworthy?"
While some see this approach as a bridge to a better world, others are concerned about the potential risks and limitations of relying solely on satellite surveillance and AI. "A successor to New START is not going to put us on the path towards disarmament," Korda says. Instead, it's just a stopgap measure that can help prevent a real spiral into hundreds more additional nuclear weapons being deployed.
In the end, the debate over the future of nuclear arms control will require careful consideration of the pros and cons of this new approach. While satellite surveillance and AI may be a step in the right direction, experts warn that they are not a replacement for human judgment and oversight. As one expert put it, "You can't just rely on machines to do the job."
. We're trying to replace human inspectors with satellites and AI, but isn't that just moving the problem around? I mean, how do we even define what's 'anomaly' in this case? And what if those AI systems get hacked or biased against certain countries? It's not just about transparency and trustworthiness - it's about accountability too 
. We can't just leave it to machines to detect nuclear threats, we need a human touch.
It's like they're expecting us to trust robots with our nukes 
. Can't we take a step back and think about what could go wrong? I mean, AI systems are only as good as their data, and if that data is biased or incomplete, so is the system 
. We need more than just tech fixes to keep us safe.
. And what if that data is biased or incomplete? It's not just about building bespoke datasets for each country, it's about having a system that can handle all the variables and uncertainties 
. I mean, AI can make mistakes, and when you're dealing with something as complex as nuclear disarmament, we need human judgment and oversight to catch any errors or red flags 
. We should be working towards more transparent and trustworthy systems, not just throwing money at it and hoping for the best 
. Let's not forget that the ultimate goal is to get rid of nukes altogether - AI can't replace people power 
.
. What if they make some human error or mistake? We can't just trust these machines 100% 
. We need people with actual expertise to review the data and make sure everything's legit. Satellites are great for surveillance, but we gotta have humans on the ground to verify stuff in person 
. And what about countries that don't wanna play by the rules? How do you keep them accountable then? 
. I think we're getting too reliant on tech to solve our problems. Satellites and AI are cool, but they can only do so much. What if there's a glitch in the system or someone hacks into it? We need human oversight to ensure these systems are working as intended. It's like trying to solve a puzzle with robots - what if one of the pieces is missing or wrong?
What's crazy is that we've got people actually proposing using satellites and AI to monitor the world's nuclear weapons. It's like, yeah, we can do that 
.
. "Oh, we don't want on-site inspectors," yeah... but can you imagine if those satellites started giving us false positives? 
We'd be scrambling to figure out what's going on, and some poor human would have to review millions of lines of data just to say, "Hey, that's not a nuke over there"... it's like Groundhog Day 
... but at the end of the day, I think we should be aiming for something better than just stopping the spiral into more nuclear arms. Can't we just, like, aim higher? 
. Can this new approach really get us closer to a world without nukes? I'm not so sure.
like is this new treaty thing gonna make things better or worse? i mean, satellite surveillance and AI sounds kinda cool but at what cost? my grandma always said that just because we have something doesn't mean it's a good idea... she had some valid points, btw 
anyway, i don't know if relying on machines is really the answer to preventing nuclear disasters... what if they mess up or get hacked?! 
. We need to be careful about how much we trust those machines 
... yeah, let's keep trying to be cool with each other 
.
too! 
, lets hope we can find balance 
.
. I mean, what's to stop China from deploying more nukes in response to our "enhanced" monitoring capabilities? It's all about balance and trust - we need human judgment and oversight to prevent a real spiral into chaos 