Duda: Military aid to Ukraine threatens nuclear arms race

using nuclear weapons “when the very existence of the state is put under threat.” In a speech last year, Russian President Vladimir Putin made it clear he believes the U.S. and its allies are threatening the very existence of Russia and its sovereignty. Since then, the U.S. and its allies have only escalated threatening actions toward Russia.

As the first anniversary of the war in Ukraine approaches, the world still isn’t any closer to a resolution. The United States is only escalating aggressive actions toward Russia, and there are no firm boundaries regarding when the U.S. will reject Ukrainian requests for more powerful weapons. Society seemingly refuses to recognize the ultimate outcome of ever-escalating actions between two nuclear superpowers. Once a nuclear weapon is used, de-escalation is off the table, and society as we know it will end in mutually assured destruction.

President Joe Biden’s nuclear policy limits the use of nuclear weapons to “extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners.” This doctrine does not significantly differ from past presidential policies of the nuclear age, but in the context of a proxy war with another nuclear superpower, Biden’s policy is leading us toward mutually assured destruction. Russia’s policy is especially frightening, which justifies

Early in the war, the U.S. practiced some discretion by supplying Ukraine only with defensive weapons such as Stinger and Javelin missiles. However, the U.S. — along with Germany and the United Kingdom — recently agreed to provide tanks to Ukraine. Tanks are widely considered offensive weapons, so this action represents an escalating shift in U.S. military aid to Ukraine — a dangerous game to play with a nuclear superpower.

President Biden recently stated the U.S. would not provide F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine, though I am not convinced he will stand by his decision, as France is now considering sending these jets to Ukraine. Similarly, the U.K. has been pushing its western allies to do more to support Ukraine, often breaking from the U.S.’s more conservative policies. Early in the year, the U.S. opposed providing tanks, but after pressure from Germany, Biden agreed to supply the M1 Abrams tanks. If the U.S. also reverses its stance and provides these jets to Ukraine, the country could fly F-16 jets into Russian airspace. Will the U.S. kneel to pressure from its allies again?

To make geopolitical relations more tense, Finland and Sweden are angling to become part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. NATO is centered around the principle of collective defense — if one NATO ally is attacked, all NATO allies are attacked — but this would enable an incredibly risky environment given Russia and Finland’s shared border. NATO nearly enacted this principle in Nov. 2022 when a missile struck Poland near its border with Ukraine. Immediately after, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy concluded the missile strike was from Russia, but NATO and Poland later agreed the missile was a stray Ukrainian defensive missile. The world was on the brink of a third world war because Zelenskyy urged NATO to invoke the collective defense principle and become fully involved in the war. Zelenskyy has yet to correct himself or apologize for his statement.

I am not advocating the U.S. cease militarily aiding Ukraine, but we need a reality check. Our geopolitical interests in the U.S. do not entirely align with Ukraine — no two countries have the same geopolitical interests. With a large landmass and strong influence over the former soviet bloc, Russia will inevitably remain the largest and most

Mills: Will you, or AI, win the imitation game?

natural language processing, AI is becoming increasingly sophisticated and is capable of performing more complex tasks with greater accuracy.

The imitation game, as proposed by mathematician Alan Turing in his 1950 paper “Computing Machinery and Intelligence,” tasks two respondents, a person and a computer, with answering questions posed by a third person or judge. The questioner must then determine which is human. This has come to be known as the Turing Test.

Turing proposed that if a machine could successfully imitate a person, then it possessed “artificial intelligence.” This notion of AI has evolved immensely since Turing’s original thought experiment, but have we gotten to the point where computers can hold coherent conversations with people? What is artificial intelligence, and could you tell the difference between a person and AI?

AI refers to the creation of intelligent machines that can think and act like human beings. These systems are designed to perform tasks that typically require human intelligence, such as understanding natural language, recognizing images and making decisions.

AI has come a long way in recent years and is now being used in a variety of industries, from healthcare and finance to retail and transportation. With advances in machine learning and

As a person, I believe that AI has the potential to greatly improve our lives. However, as with any new technology, there are also concerns about the impact of AI on our society.

So what do you think of AI? How did you do? I asked ChatGPT by OpenAI to “tell me as humanly as possible what AI is,” and the previous three paragraphs are its answer (lightly edited for AP style conventions and concision). You are the judge, and I am the human respondent. Did you think my intro was AI? Or did you think AI’s description of itself was me? Am I me? Who knows. What I do know is that I am scared of AI. Programs like ChatGPT use machine learning to generate text in response to user input. This means the program learns from existing content to generate new content, which can blur the lines between an original and plagiarized work.

ChatGPT is capable of passing common law exams at the University of Minnesota, as well as an operations management assessment at The Wharton School at The University of Pennsylvania. It has even “performed at or near the passing threshold” in all three parts of the United States Medical Licensing Exam.

AI as a tool for students and professionals is nothing new. Grammarly, a tool used by over 30 million people, is a prime example of AI’s usefulness in higher education. The program uses machine learning to catch and correct common grammar mistakes. Similarly, college professors are using AI to try to catch us cheating. Turnitin, a plagiarism software utilized by professors, has been utilizing AI processing capabilities since 2015. Even predictive text runs on machine learning. influential nation-state in eastern Europe. Additionally, Russia’s large population means that Putin, like past unscrupulous leaders of Russia, will be able to throw bodies into the war machine until they win, similar to the world wars. Ukraine is continuing to fight valiantly, but peace talks must be an option before it’s too late.

Despite these existing tools, new concerns of plagiarism and misinformation are mounting as programs like ChatGPT and other AI technologies use existing writing, art and knowledge to generate human-like work. This opens the door to numerous debates on the ethics of AI, machine learning and the information these programs are learning from. Are these sources biased? Are they accurate? And is the machine learning algorithm committing theft?

It is our job — that is, as humans — to keep AI in check, to ensure its ethical development and usage. But I don’t think we have that quite figured out. In the meantime, AI might not be ready to terminate humanity (yet). But I think it is still reasonable to be wary of AI’s progress. to Ukraine, or else this is the way the world ends.

Kadin Mills is a Medill Junior. He can be contacted at kadinmills2024@u.northwestern.edu. If you would like to respond publicly to this op-ed, send a Letter to the Editor to opinion@dailynorthwestern.com. The views expressed in this piece do not necessarily reflect the views of all staff members of The Daily Northwestern.

With every military escalation from the U.S., talk of nuclear war heightens. As the brutal winter subsides, we will likely see more major military offensives. Putin and Zelenskyy are both preparing their armies as we speak, and a spring uptick in battles could provoke the U.S. to provide even more powerful weapons to Ukraine. We are just one escalating action away from Putin deciding to use a nuclear weapon. The U.S. and its allies better choose wisely when providing more powerful weapons to Ukraine, or else this is the way the world ends.

Melissa Duda is a Weinberg first-year graduate student. She can be contacted at melissaduda2024@u. northwestern.edu. If you would like to respond publicly to this op-ed, send a Letter to the Editor to opinion@ dailynorthwestern.com. The views expressed in this piece do not necessarily reflect the views of all staff members of The Daily Northwestern.

The Daily Northwestern Volume 145, Issue 9

Editor in Chief Alex Perry

Opinion Editor Kadin Mills

Assistant

Opinion Editors

Loretta David Yiming Fu

Managing Editors

Seeger Gray

Joanne Haner Angeli Mittal Olatunji OshoWilliams

Kara Peeler Nicole Tan

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR may be sent to 1999 Campus Drive, Evanston, IL 60208, via fax at 847-491-9905, via e-mail to opinion@ dailynorthwestern.com or by dropping a letter in the box outside The Daily office.

Letters have the following requirements:

• Should be typed and double-spaced

• Should include the author’s name, signature, school, class and phone number.

• Should be fewer than 300 words They will be checked for authenticity and may be edited for length, clarity, style and grammar.

Letters, columns and cartoons contain the opinion of the authors, not Students Publishing Co. Inc. Submissions signed by more than three people must include at least one and no more than three names designated to represent the group.

Editorials reflect the majority opinion of The Daily’s student editorial board and not the opinions of either Northwestern University or Students Publishing Co. Inc.