This market is part of the Humans v Bots Battle 2024, where AI forecasters will duke it out on the most important world questions of 2024. Can you beat the bots and snag part of the 250,000 Mana (~$2.5k) prize?
The Biden administration has explicitly stated its intent to engage China in arms control discussions. But implementing effective human control measures would require significant transparency and verification mechanisms.
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/11/28/23972547/the-militarized-ai-risk-thats-bigger-than-killer-robots
1,000
3.00@mods @FUTURESEARCH this should resolve to "Yes"; see below.
Reuters: Biden, Xi agree that humans, not AI, should control nuclear arms
>U.S. President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping agreed on Saturday that human beings and not artificial intelligence should make decisions over the use of nuclear weapons, according to the White House."
>"The two leaders affirmed the need to maintain human control over the decision to use nuclear weapons," the White House said in a statement. "The two leaders also stressed the need to consider carefully the potential risks and develop AI technology in the military field in a prudent and responsible manner."
@vitamind
I don't think that two leaders merely saying that it would be nice to keep humans in the loop should constitute an agreement. At the very least I think there ought to be some kind of written agreement explicitly establishing terms/etc. Perhaps there is such a written agreement, IDK.
Is there not more detailed resolution criteria that I'm missing somewhere? I made a trade on this but am now realizing it might be quite vague and I might have misinterpreted how easy it would be to satisfy this.
@hmdurlz From the cited article: "It was not clear whether the statement would lead to further talks or action on the issue."
"The two countries briefly resumed official-level talks over nuclear arms in November but those negotiations have since stalled, with a top U.S. official publicly expressing frustration regarding China's responsiveness.
Formal nuclear arms control negotiations have not been expected any time soon, despite U.S. concerns about China's rapid nuclear weapons build-up, even though semi-official exchanges have resumed." [I'm unclear if this quote is referring to this November, but I think it is?]
>I don't think that two leaders merely saying that it would be nice to keep humans in the loop
Nice strawman, but the article explicitly states they agreed. There are no ambiguous statements like, "we are going to explore this issue further", "we agreed that this is a serious issue" etc; they've simply agreed on the issue.
I'll agree with you that there is no criteria (like almost every question in this tournament...) which is pretty annoying, but say this question actually requires a creation of a written agreement, law, treaty etc., then that significantly raises the bar for a positive resolution and it would be apparently obvious, either in the title or the resolution criteria, that this was the case. (And if that is the case, then that is just negligence.)
Again, the question asks: "Will the US & China agree in 2024 to keep a human in the loop for decisions to use nuclear weapons?" and, IMHO, this has been satisfied. (If not, I hope I'm the first to sell!)