"Indeed! Therefore it stands to reason they will come to the same conclusion we come to, following a brief tangent at the end of their meeting about how we're also going through the same process. If our conclusion is to ignore the advice and not attack, we can be reasonably confident that will be their conclusion too. Perfectly symmetrical fighting never solved anything."
There's always been sabre rattling throughout history. I'm not sure "AI says so" is much better than "the numbers guys say so" or "the chicken bones say so."
Claiming "the AI says so" or delegating to some other fail-deadly or dead hand device is rational irrationality. It's telling your opponent that you lack the capability to not use violence. By forcing your own hand, it forces their hand.
I really don't see much of any of the hyperbole of these bots coming to pass, but I think the propaganda bots are very near a 100% assuming the bots can be made to stop being so absurdly susceptible to adversarial prompting, to say nothing of unprovoked hallucinations. The one bright side is this will almost certainly backfire spectacularly, and we'll all be the better for it. Of course that the powers that be will try this is something that deserves condemnation in and of itself, regardless of outcome.
We're supposing armed forces are using AI very heavily, but not so heavily to defer to it. They think it's valuable, but it made a bad choice in this case. But they also think it's not such an obviously bad choice that the opponent will also overrule it.
So first of all, we're assuming a hypothetical where we, as humans, also judge a first strike to possibly be the right course of action. After all, the hypothetical assumes we will be worried that other humans will think that. This is not a new concern. It's not good, but it's not new, and it doesn't apply to situations where a first strike is obviously a bad choice for both parties.
But then secondly, we're presupposing the AI is pretty complex and valuable and usually gets things right. We wouldn't be almost-deferring to it if not, and we wouldn't be worried the opponent defers to it. And we would certainly have informed the AI that the opponent is also using AI. And while I'm very hesitant to reason "it's unlikely the AI would make this recommendation to begin with", it does seem unlikely it would do so in any event where it's demonstrated such strong capabilities that we've entrusted it this heavily. We're essentially presupposing it doesn't do that.
"hey, we know they are using committees too"