If we're focused on weapons of mass destruction, I prefer a world of nuclear nonproliferation to the opposite
So do I generally speaking, but with a caveat... I think that having multiple (eg, more than 1 or 2) nuclear powers is likely a Good Thing (given that the tech exists at all). The whole MAD principle seems very likely to be one reason the world has yet to descend into nuclear war. The main reason I prefer nuclear non-proliferation though, isn't because I genuinely expect something like a US/Russia nuclear war, it's more the possibility of terrorists or non-state actors getting their hands on a nuke.
It's interesting though, because these various analogies between guns, nukes and AI's don't necessarily hold up. I was about to say a lot more, but on second thought, I want to think about this more.
I actually prefer japan's approach. They know exactly how to build nukes. They don't have any on hand. If they're backed into a corner, they'll produce as many as they feel they need.
Unfortunately during the cold war, neither side could really rely on the other to just chill out for a couple of days. So now we can deliver hundreds (thousands?) anywhere in the world in about 45 minutes.
So do I generally speaking, but with a caveat... I think that having multiple (eg, more than 1 or 2) nuclear powers is likely a Good Thing (given that the tech exists at all). The whole MAD principle seems very likely to be one reason the world has yet to descend into nuclear war. The main reason I prefer nuclear non-proliferation though, isn't because I genuinely expect something like a US/Russia nuclear war, it's more the possibility of terrorists or non-state actors getting their hands on a nuke.
It's interesting though, because these various analogies between guns, nukes and AI's don't necessarily hold up. I was about to say a lot more, but on second thought, I want to think about this more.