ValnaoAIs can’t stop recommending nuclear strikes in war game simulations
The atrocities at Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been hand-waved extensively in writing — the same writing that AI is trained on. So naturally, AI will recommend the atrocity that has been justified by “instantly winning the war” and “saving millions of lives.”
hand-waved
I think you mean white-washed, misrepresented, and celebrated.
Ayo do me a favor and chart the long term health effects of being vaporized by a nuclear bomb at hiroshima vs years of agent orange/abandoned minefields/ abandoned chemical and munitions storage somewhere like Vietnam circa 1970.
Please show how the nukes are worse.
Eight decades of research on the long-term health effects of radiation in atomic bomb survivors and their offspring
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41144264/
Long-term Radiation-Related Health Effects in a Unique Human Population: Lessons Learned from the Atomic Bomb Survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
cambridge.org/…/61689AD5A1AA4A684B84DFA4F9E5D1D3
Health Impacts of Hiroshima Bombing
large.stanford.edu/courses/2024/ph241/bennett1/
Long-term Health Consequences of Nuclear Weapons
70 Years on Red Cross Hospitals still treat Thousands of Atomic Bomb Survivors
Eight decades of research on the long-term health effects of radiation in atomic bomb survivors and their offspring - PubMed
This year marks the 80th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Over the past eight decades, large-scale cohort studies of atomic bomb survivors and their offspring conducted by the Radiation Effects Research Foundation and its predecessor, the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission, …
Unfortunately I’m going to have to grade you as an F on this project. You have only completed half the assignment. Great job cherrypucking your research though! I see a bright future in business and marketing for you!
5/10
My source is my own post where I asked for a comparison between the health effects of the bombing of Hiroshima vs the contamination of half of a Vietnam war. The answer i reviewed only explored the health effects of the hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. That’s half of the assignment. Less, actually, when you consider the comparison between the two was the entire point to begin with.
Did that answer your question or should I try again with a crayon diagram?
Now tell that to your high-school English teacher when they assign you a research project.
This isn’t school, kid. This is the internet. You aren’t a teacher and this comments section isn’t a research paper.
You posed an obnoxious whataboutism, as if the horrifying things America has done to multiple asian countries somehow cancel each other out because one is ‘worse’ than the other despite both being war crimes.
Though as an aside, would you consider firebombing every Japanese city they can get a plane over, for a period of months ‘worse’ than wiping two cities off the map because they wanted to test out their new toy (in the case of little boy, potentially running the risk of it failing to go off and leaving a functional mass of enriched uranium right at the feet of a country they were at war with)?
Would you consider the use of agent orange and napalm ‘worse’ than them say, creating AIDS, or destabilising any nations that were getting a little too successful, any part of the MKultra program, funelling huge quantities of money to a country that has still to this day never signed the nuclear nonproliferation agreement?
Would you consider it worse that there are widespread birth defects in multiple arabic countries due to the use of depleted Uranium munitions for so long that the ground became radioactive?
Or would you be willing to stop comparing piss and chocolate for the sake of being neurotic on the internet?
Holy shit I almost took you seriesly. Then I read the part about how “them” created AIDS lmfaoooo
And I thought I was a good shitposter. Whew. I am thoroughly outclassed.
People villify nuclear weapons to ludicrous proportions, and that was kind of my whole point. Would you, as a thinking and feeling person, if given the choice, choose to be instantly annihilated by a nuclear bomb or live to be poisoned over decades? I’d choose to meet the sun, personally, but I’m always astounded how many people think the poison is somehow the lesser of these evils.
Congratulations for failing to address anything I said.
In response to your piss poor argument of “would you rather suffer a poison that makes your children deformed and gives you and everyone in your village/town/city turbocancer, or would you rather have your city turned into a smoldering crater?”
Considering that modern nuclear weapons, excluding a couple of nuclear artillery shells, ‘viable deterrent’ devices and dirty bombs, are Thermonuclear devices capable of up to and beyond the triple digit megaton range (The weapon known colloquially as ‘Tsar Bomba’ would have had a yield of 100Mt if they used the original Uranium tamper instead of the Lead they used to stop it from irradiating the entire area of their test site. Instead it ‘only’ had a yield of 50Mt, the blast wave it created circled the globe three times and shattered windows 500 miles away.
So, you tell me.
Turbocancer for you, your family, friends and their family, your neighbours, their neighbours, any livestock, pets or wild animals, because the scientists that got picked up by government agencies after the last war, wanted to test out their new chemical concoction on the newest group they had deemed to be an ‘enemy’.
Or everything you’ve ever known being converted into a high temperature plasma setting fire to an area 60 miles in diameter, then afterwards everything downwind gets covered in radioactive ash (and also given turbocancer) when the 40 mile high cloud of debris falls out of the sky, all because the scientists that got picked up after the last war wanted to see how much physics they could fit into a bomb.
Or are you willing to admit that maybe comparing the two is like comparing Fluorine and TNT.