I agree and also disagree.

> There was no nuclear weapons race; once it became clear that Germany had no chance of building atomic bombs, several scientists left the MP in protest

You are forgetting Japan in WWII and given casualty numbers from island hopping it was going to be a absolutely huge casualty count with US troops, probably something on the order of Englands losses during WW1. Which for them sent them on a downward trajectory due to essentially an entire generation dying or being extremely traumatized. If the US did not have Nagasaki and Hiroshima we would probably not have the space program and US technical prowess post WWII, so a totally different reality than where we are today.

Did you stop reading my comment there? I debunked this already.

Asserting that there is strong evidence against a claim is not "debunking" a claim.

You're right, that was overstated. I should have just said addressed. But my word choice doesn't make the gp comment any more valid.

> the atomic bombs weren't necessary to end the war with Japan either. (It can't be said with certainty one way or the other, but there's pretty strong evidence that their existence was not the decisive factor in surrender.)

Well, you didn't provide any evidence. Island hopping in the Pacific theater itself took thousands of lives, imagine what a headlong strike into a revanchist country of citizens determined to fight to the last man, woman and child would have looked like. We don't know how effective a hypothetical Soviet assault would have looked like as they had attacked sparsely populated Sakhalin only. What the atom bomb succeeded was in convincing Emperor Hirohito that continuing the war would be destructively pointless.

WW1 practically destroyed the British Empire for the most part. WW2 would have done the same for the US in your hypothetical scenario, but much worse.

You did not lol

I'll try to argue his point. The idea that Japan would have resisted to the last man and that a massive amphibious invasion would have been required is kind of a myth. The US pacific submarine fleet had sunk the majority of the Japanese merchant marine to the point that Japan was critically low on war materiel and food. The Japanese navy had lost all of its capital ships and there was a critical shortage of personnel like pilots. The Soviets also invaded and overran Manchuria over a span of weeks. The military wing of the Japanese government certainly wanted to continue fighting but the writing was on the wall. The nuclear bombing of Japanese cities certainly pressed the issue but much of the American Military command in the Pacific thought it was unnecessarily brutal, and Japanese cities had already been devastated by a bombing campaign that included firebombing. I'm not sure that completely aligns with my own views but that's basically the argument, and there are compelling points.

I am looking at the numbers from operation downfall that Truman and senior members of the administration looked at which had between 500,000 to 1,000,000 lives lost on the US side for a Japan invasion/defeat. 406k US soldiers lost their lives in WW2 so that would have more than tripled the deaths from its current numbers. And as for WWI and British casualties which I mentioned earlier, the British lost around 885k troops during WWI so US would have exceeded that number even on the low end of casualties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#:~:text=Tru....

Yeah it would have been a bloody invasion. I'm saying it probably would not have been necessary since Japan was under siege and basically out of food already.

Nimitz wanted to embargo Japan and starve them out.

The big problem that McArthur and others pointed out is that all the Japanese forces on the Asian mainland and left behind in the Island Hopping campaign through the Pacific were unlikely to surrender unless Japan itself was definitively defeated with the central government capitulating and aiding in the demobilization.

From their perspective the options were to either invade Japan and force a capitulation, or go back and keep fighting it out with every island citadel and throughout China, Indochina, Formosa, Korea, and Manchuria.

> The urgency was faked and less true of the Manhattan Project than it is of AGI safety.

I'd say they were equal. We were worried about Russia getting nuclear capability once we knew Germany was out of the race. Russia was at best our frenemy. The enemy of my enemy is my friend kind of thing.

> However, the race to develop AGI is very real, and we also have no way of knowing how close anyone is to reaching it.

It seems pretty irresponsible for AI boosters to say it’ll happen within 5 years then.

There’s a pretty important engineering distinction between the Manhattan Project and current research towards AGI. At the time of the Manhattan Project scientists already had a pretty good idea of how to build the weapon. The fundamental research had already been done. Most of the budget was actually just spent refining uranium. Of course there were details to figure out like the specific design of the detonator, but the mechanism of a runaway chain reaction was understood. This is much more concrete than building AGI.

For AGI nobody knows how to do it in detail. There are proposals for building trillion dollar clusters but we don’t have any theoretical basis for believing we’ll get AGI afterwards. The “scaling laws” people talk about are not actual laws but just empirical observations of trends in flawed metrics.

> It seems pretty irresponsible for AI boosters to say it’ll happen within 5 years then.

Agreed. Do they?

Sam Altman said 5 years.

Demis Hassabis said 50/50 it happens in 5 years.

Jensen Huang said 5 years.

Elon Musk said 2 years.

Leopold Aschenbrenner said 5 years.

Matt Garman said 2 years for all programming jobs.

And I think most relevant to this article, since SSI says they won’t release a product until they have superintelligence, I think the fact that VCs are giving them money means they’ve been pretty optimistic in statements about about their timelines.