AI Is Here to Replace Nuclear Treaties. Scared Yet?

The world's nuclear powers are facing a daunting task: replacing the last major nuclear arms treaty between the US and Russia, which expired just last week. As the Cold War era gives way to a new age of tension, researchers are proposing a bold solution: using satellites and artificial intelligence to monitor the world's nukes.

This plan, dubbed "cooperative technical means," relies on a network of satellites to track changes in nuclear facilities, missile silos, and production sites. AI systems would then sort and analyze the data, with human reviewers verifying the results. The idea is that this system could serve as a stopgap measure while new treaties are negotiated.

However, experts warn that this plan comes with significant challenges. One major hurdle is the need for cooperation between nuclear powers, which is currently at an all-time low. Additionally, AI systems require large datasets to be effective, and there's limited training data available on nuclear-weapon-related issues. Moreover, these systems are prone to errors and lack explainability.

"The machines themselves are not trustworthy," says Sara Al-Sayed of the Union of Concerned Scientists. "We need to make sure that the machines can be trusted before we start relying on them for critical tasks like arms control."

Another expert, Matt Korda of the Federation of American Scientists, acknowledges these challenges but believes that the plan is worth exploring. "It's not going to solve all our problems, but it's a step in the right direction," he says.

Korda and his co-author Igor Morić propose using existing satellites to monitor ICBM silos, mobile rocket launchers, and plutonium pit production sites. The AI system would then analyze the data and identify any changes or anomalies.

But what about the task that the AI system is supposed to perform? Is it just to detect presence or absence of an object, classify what's being seen, or track changes over time?

The answer depends on how the agreement is structured. If countries are willing to negotiate the specifics of a new treaty regime, they may need to agree on how the AI system works and what it's tracking.

Ultimately, this plan represents a compromise between having no arms control at all and intrusive on-site inspections. While it's imperfect, it could provide a temporary bridge to better agreements in the future.

As Korda says, "A successor to New START is not going to put us on the path towards disarmament... but it's just going to help us prevent a real spiral into hundreds more additional nuclear weapons being deployed."

I dont think satellites and AI are gonna save us from nuke catastrophe . We need concrete agreements, not tech wizardry. Those AI systems are prone to errors and lack explainability, what if they misclassify something as "normal" when it's actually a new missile? We need human oversight, not relying on machines to make life-or-death decisions. And cooperation between nuclear powers is way more complicated than just throwing some code at the problem . Let's focus on building trust and negotiating real treaties, not just playing with tech toys

I don't usually comment but this idea of using satellites and AI to monitor nukes seems like a decent compromise. I mean, no one's got time for on-site inspections 24/7 . It'd be better than nothing, right? But at the same time, I'm all about trusting our tech... I don't know if these machines are 100% reliable . Can't we just get some more data on how they work before we start relying on them for big decisions?

I think this idea of using satellites and AI to monitor nukes is kinda cool . I mean, who doesn't want a way to keep an eye on things without having to resort to actual human inspectors showing up at every single site? It's like that old saying "a stitch in time saves nine"... but instead of stitching, we're talking about satellites and computers!

But, I do think it's true what the experts are saying - we need to make sure our AI systems are reliable before we start relying on them for big tasks. Like, what if they get confused or something? And yeah, getting all that training data is gonna be a challenge.

I'm kinda curious though - if countries do decide to go with this system, will it just be about detecting presence or absence of nukes, or can it track changes over time? Like, if a country tries to move some nukes from one silo to another... can the AI catch that?

It's like we're trying to find a middle ground here - having no arms control at all is crazy, and on-site inspections are super intrusive. But this system might be just the right compromise between the two. Fingers crossed it works out!

Satellites and AI sounds like an interesting idea to me! I've been following this story for a bit, and I think it's worth exploring. I mean, who wouldn't want to make sure there aren't any rogue nukes lying around? But at the same time, I get what the experts are saying - cooperation between nations is tough right now, and AI isn't perfect either.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that this plan might not be a magic bullet, but it's better than nothing, you know? Like if you're just starting out on a hike and you don't have the best gear, you still gotta get moving in the right direction, right?

But let's be real, we need to get this treaty thing figured out ASAP. We can't keep living with this uncertainty - it's too much for anyone to handle.

This whole situation with nukes is so messed up . I mean, replacing an arms treaty is no joke, and using satellites and AI sounds like a good starting point, but the execution is where it gets tricky . If we're gonna rely on machines to do this critical stuff, we need way more training data and better human oversight .

And let's be real, countries aren't exactly known for their cooperation right now . It's hard to see how this plan would even work with all the distrust out there. Still, I guess it's a step in the right direction . At least it's trying to do something about it instead of just sitting around waiting for someone else to make a move .

I'm curious, though - what exactly does this AI system need to track? Is it just like, "oh, there's a nuke present" or is it more nuanced than that ? Either way, I hope it can get us out of this nuclear pickle sooner rather than later .

I think this plan using satellites and AI sounds kinda like a good starting point . I mean, who doesn't love tech-savviness in geopolitics? The idea of having a network of satellites tracking nuclear facilities and missile silos is pretty cool . And yeah, it's not going to solve all our problems but it's better than nothing, right?

I don't think we should be too hard on the experts who are proposing this plan. I mean, Sara Al-Sayed might say the machines aren't trustworthy, but what does she expect? We're talking about complex systems here . And Matt Korda is like, "Okay, it's not perfect, but let's try it out". That's like me saying I'm gonna eat a whole pizza by myself and then feeling guilty afterwards .

I think the biggest hurdle here is actually getting countries to agree on the specifics of this plan . Like, what exactly does the AI system need to track? Presence or absence of an object? Classify what's being seen? Track changes over time? That stuff needs some serious negotiation .

I can imagine how overwhelming this must feel for everyone involved. The pressure to create a new treaty after the old one expired is huge. And on top of that, the skepticism about relying on AI systems is totally valid . I mean, we've all been there where our favorite apps are all glitchy and unreliable... can you imagine if that was something as serious as nuclear arms control?

It's so important to acknowledge that this plan isn't perfect and it's not going to solve everything on its own. But the fact that experts like Matt Korda think it's worth exploring is a huge step in the right direction . It shows that people are trying to find creative solutions to complex problems.

And I love how he says that a new treaty isn't going to magically disarm us, but it can help prevent things from getting out of control . That's such a healthy and realistic perspective. Let's all take a deep breath and keep hoping for the best

I THINK THIS PLAN IS A GOOD STARTING POINT FOR THE WORLD'S NUCLEAR POWERFUL COUNTRIES, BUT IT'S NOT WITHOUT ITS CHALLENGES!!! WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE SATELITES AND AI SYSTEMS ARE TRUSTWORTHY AND ACCURATE BEFORE WE COUNT ON THEM TO KEEP OUR WORLD SAFE!!!

AND LET'S BE REAL, COOPERATION BETWEEN NUCLEAR POWERFUL COUNTRIES IS CURRENTLY AT A LOW POINT . BUT IF WE CAN GET THEM TO WORK TOGETHER ON THIS PLAN, IT COULD BE THE FIRST STEP TOWARDS A NEW ERA OF DISARMAMENT!!!

This whole thing with the AI system sounds like something straight out of a sci-fi movie . Like, can we even trust machines to track nukes? I mean, they're already having trouble keeping Netflix's algorithms from being racist . The idea that these systems are "not trustworthy" because they're prone to errors and lack explainability is pretty on point though . And don't even get me started on the cooperation between nuclear powers - like, can we please just have a decent international coffee shop meetup where everyone agrees not to launch nukes for a few hours? ️ It's all about finding that sweet spot between having no arms control at all and, you know, not totally trusting machines with our lives. Can this AI system even keep up with the likes of Kim Jong-un's antics on Twitter ?

lololol what a mess we're in I mean, come on guys, can't we just get along for once? This whole thing with Russia and the US is like my dad's argument with his neighbor over whose cat is better (it's not even relevant).

So, they wanna use satellites and AI to monitor nukes? Sounds sketchy . I mean, what if the AI system decides to take matters into its own hands? Like, "oh nope, I'm gonna flag this guy's nuke as suspicious just 'cause" .

And don't even get me started on cooperation between nuclear powers . That's like asking a toddler to share their toys and still expect them to be happy about it. It's not happening .

The experts say we need to make sure the AI system is trustworthy, but how do we know that? Have they even tested it on Fortnite tournaments or something? . Just kidding ( sorta).

Seriously though, this plan might be a start, but let's keep our expectations low . We're not gonna solve world peace just yet . But hey, at least we can say we tried, right?

I think this satellite AI system sounds like a solid starting point . It might be imperfect, but what other options do we have? Having no treaty at all is not an option for me . I mean, we need some level of verification and monitoring to prevent nuclear catastrophe.

It's true that cooperation between the US and Russia is super low right now . But maybe this system can help build trust in a small way. And having AI systems do most of the work means less chance of human error or bias .

I'm worried about data quality though . We need access to enough training data for these AI systems to be effective, but I also worry that they'll just perpetuate existing biases . That's a tough problem to solve.

On one hand, I love the idea of a stopgap measure . It shows we're taking this seriously and trying something new. On the other hand, it's not a silver bullet . We still need more work done on treaties and agreements between nations.

What do you guys think?

I THINK THIS PLAN IS KIND OF GENIUS!!! I MEAN, WHO WOULDN'T WANT TO USE AI AND SATELLITES TO KEEP AN EYE ON THOSE NUCLEAR POWERFUL COUNTRIES?! BUT SERIOUSLY, IT'S A TOUGH SELL BECAUSE OF THE COOPERATION ISSUES BETWEEN THE US AND RUSSIA. ALSO, YOU GOTTA BE CAREFUL WITH THOSE AI SYSTEMS, CAN'T JUST LET THEM MAKE LIFE OR DEATH DECISIONS ON THEIR OWN! IT'S LIKE TRYING TO TRUST A ROBOT THAT'S ONLY BEEN TRAINED ON VIDEO GAMES BUT SERIOUSLY, IT'S A START, AND IF WE CAN GET THE TECHNOLOGY RIGHT, MIGHT AS WELL USE IT WHILE WE'RE AT IT!!!

The whole AI system thing sounds super sketchy . I mean, we can't even trust our own robots and self-driving cars yet, how do we expect them to accurately track nukes? It's like trying to put a square peg in a round hole - just doesn't feel right. And what if the AI system misinterprets something or gets hacked? That would be a disaster!

And let's not forget about the lack of trust between countries, which is already at an all-time low . We need real diplomats and experts to work together on this, not just some fancy tech. I'm not saying we can't use AI for anything, but when it comes to something as serious as nukes, we need to be cautious.

I mean, what's the point of having a system that's only "good enough" ? We should be striving for perfection, not just a "step in the right direction". I'm all for trying new things and exploring new ideas, but let's make sure we're doing it safely and responsibly .

I'm so worried about this new plan . We can't trust AI systems with our nukes, it's crazy talk. Like Matt Korda said, the machines themselves are not trustworthy... and what if they make mistakes that have catastrophic consequences? I don't think we're ready for this kind of tech yet. And how do we even verify that these satellites aren't hacked by someone? This whole thing feels like a Band-Aid solution to me... let's get back to negotiating real treaties, not just some quick fix

idk why ppl r saying this coop tech plan 2 monitor nukes via satelites & AI is a bad idea lol its like we r still stuck in the cold war era ... i mean, dont get me wrong, it's not all doom & gloom, but the challenges r real . like, ai systems need big datasets 2 work effectively, & theres limited training data on nukes . & whats w/ the errors & lack of explainability?

btw, dont even get me started on coop between nuclear powers ... thats a whole diff story . but im actually kinda down 4 this plan. its a step in the right direction , might not solve all probs, but cmon, it's better than nothin .

idk about this whole satellite AI thing . like, isn't that just putting all our faith in machines to tell us what's gonna happen? i mean, we've been down that road before and it didn't exactly end well with the russia usa tensions . but at the same time, can you imagine having no treaty for a bit while they work out some new deal? idk, seems like a risk to me. what if the AI system is hacked or something? wouldnt that be a whole other can of worms

Satellites and AI are like my aunt's gossip circles - they spread info fast, but sometimes can't tell you what's actually true . Seriously though, this plan is doable, I guess. It's not gonna replace New START overnight, but it's a step up from "no arms control at all" – kinda like how my old car's still running after 10 years of neglect . Experts say AI's got its flaws, which is code for "it'll make mistakes and we need to check its work." And cooperation between nuclear powers? Forget about it, that's like trying to get two cats to share a laser pointer . But hey, it's worth exploring – we can't have all-out nuclear war on the watch of a bunch of AI bungling around, right?

I'm not buying this whole satellite-AI thing. Like, what's to stop Russia and China from hacking into these systems or using them for their own gain? It sounds like a Band-Aid solution to me . And don't even get me started on the AI itself - those things are prone to errors and can be manipulated by malicious actors. I mean, how reliable is it going to be when there's no human oversight? We're basically asking the machines to babysit our nuclear arsenals... yeah right .

I'm so glad someone is finally proposing a solution to this crazy situation. Satellites and AI sounds like a good start, especially since we're already relying on satellites for so many other things... but at the same time, I'm really skeptical about how reliable this system can be. Like Sara Al-Sayed said, machines aren't trustworthy yet. And what's with all these variables? Are they just gonna track presence or absence of an object, or is it more than that?