Umm arguably the USA did exactly this when they developed devices that exploit fusion and then miniaturized them and loaded them into bombers, silos, and submarines.
They never made enough nukes to kill everyone on the planet but that bioweapon probably wouldn’t either. Bioweapon is more counterable, some groups would survive so long as they isolated long enough.
So… are you saying that if the nations of the world had gotten together to agree to ban nukes in 1950 or so, and the ban seemed to be generally working except that the USA said no and continued to develop nukes, the other nations of the world would have been justified in attacking said nuclear facilities?
Justified? Yes. Would the USA have caved in response? Of course not, it has nukes and they don’t. (Assuming it first gets everything in place for rapid exploitation of the nukes, it can use them danger close to vaporize invasions then bomb every country attackings most strategic assets. )
AGI has similar military benefits. Better attack fast or the country with it will rapidly become more powerful and you will be helpless to threaten anything in return, having not invested in AGI infrastructure.
So in this scenario each party has to have massive training facilities, smaller secret test runs, and warehouses full of robots so they can rapidly act if they think the other party is defecting. So everyone is a slight pressure on a button away from developing and using AGI.
Umm arguably the USA did exactly this when they developed devices that exploit fusion and then miniaturized them and loaded them into bombers, silos, and submarines.
They never made enough nukes to kill everyone on the planet but that bioweapon probably wouldn’t either. Bioweapon is more counterable, some groups would survive so long as they isolated long enough.
So… are you saying that if the nations of the world had gotten together to agree to ban nukes in 1950 or so, and the ban seemed to be generally working except that the USA said no and continued to develop nukes, the other nations of the world would have been justified in attacking said nuclear facilities?
Justified? Yes. Would the USA have caved in response? Of course not, it has nukes and they don’t. (Assuming it first gets everything in place for rapid exploitation of the nukes, it can use them danger close to vaporize invasions then bomb every country attackings most strategic assets. )
AGI has similar military benefits. Better attack fast or the country with it will rapidly become more powerful and you will be helpless to threaten anything in return, having not invested in AGI infrastructure.
So in this scenario each party has to have massive training facilities, smaller secret test runs, and warehouses full of robots so they can rapidly act if they think the other party is defecting. So everyone is a slight pressure on a button away from developing and using AGI.