by luizcdc on 2/1/2025, 12:44:25 PM
by eesmith on 2/1/2025, 2:11:23 PM
Can't read due to paywall.
Remember though that the Manhattan Project was only somewhat a secret. Quoting from https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/03/29/narratives-of-man...
"The truth is, even without the knowledge of the spying (which they didn’t have in 1945), this narrative is somewhat false even on its own terms. There were leaks about the Manhattan Project (and atomic bombs and energy in general) printed in major press outlets in the United States and abroad. It was considered an “open secret” among Washington politicos and journalists that the Army was working on a new super-weapon that involved atomic energy just prior to its use. Now, it certainly could have been worse, but it’s not clear whether the Army (or the Office of Censorship) had much control over that."
The idea the the Manhattan Project was some sort of super-secret project with no leaks was post-war propaganda.
Remember, the Soviets had spies at the Manhattan Project, despite how one of the goals of the secrecy was to keep the Soviet Union from knowing about the project.
From the same site we can read "The worst of the Manhattan Project leaks" at https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/09/20/worst-manhattan-p... when John W. Raper, a columnist for the Cleveland Press, was in New Mexico on vacation, learned there was a secret project, and published what he found in the paper after he returned.
by Bostonian on 2/1/2025, 3:52:34 PM
The US was at war during the course of the Manhattan Project. This is not the case now.
Being the sole owner of the first AGI would probably give the US an edge against its peers, but as fair as foreign policy goes, not as much as being the only nuclear-capable country.
For the world as a whole and probably for the US itself, in absolute terms, an entirely open AGI accessible to all countries with the necessary resources could have such an impact in the global economy that everyone ends up better off in aggregate.