[HN Gopher] The AI war and how to win it
___________________________________________________________________
The AI war and how to win it
Author : hardmaru
Score : 66 points
Date : 2022-11-28 00:35 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (alexw.substack.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (alexw.substack.com)
| blacksqr wrote:
| It's funny that OP doesn't realize "the AI war" will be between
| the AI and all of humanity.
| tetraca wrote:
| It won't. It'll be a war between the people and entrenched
| power structures who will use very primitive AIs to crystalize
| their position at the expense of everyone else. What rich man
| or government would ever fear riot or revolution when you can
| use data mining algorithms and precision drones to liquidate
| even the most minor whiff of dissent at the push of a button?
| They will eat everyone else with specialized drones as sapient
| as insects before truly human AI is a thing.
| salamo wrote:
| I tend to worry about the opposite problem: what if the United
| States is successful in deploying artificial intelligence? In the
| article, the author uses the United States interchangeably with
| the concept of liberal democracy, which I believe is a fair
| assumption today. However, I worry that many of the author's
| calls to soak up more and more information for the purposes of
| military supremacy will cause irreparable damage to our political
| system. Artificial intelligence has the tendency to centralize
| power in the hands of a small number of people, and breakthroughs
| in AI are likely to exacerbate this trend. In short, the US might
| win this hypothetical war, but at what cost?
|
| The way I see it, there are three kinds of technologies: A) those
| which tend to centralize information or control B) those which
| are essentially neutral and C) those which democratize
| information and control.
|
| Group A artificial intelligence capabilities are not hard to
| imagine. Ubiquitous surveillance is a good example. Many current
| AI technologies are great for surveillance and can dramatically
| reduce the marginal cost of surveilling a person. For an
| autocracy this is great. For a liberal democracy, it threatens
| civil liberties and reduces trust.
|
| Group B technologies are things like self-driving cars, precision
| agriculture, and AI-facilitated entertainment (e.g. recommender
| systems, Dall-E). These are things which I don't see as
| fundamentally helpful or harmful to liberal democracy. Another
| way to look at these technologies is that both autocracies and
| democracies should be equally amenable to developing and using
| them.
|
| I can't think of any Group C technologies and this worries me.
| These are AI-enabled technologies whose effects are
| disproportionately democratizing. A democracy should seek these
| out while an autocracy will ban them.
| pshc wrote:
| The consensus algorithms used by cryptocurrency fit into group
| C.
|
| Smart contracts are programmable incentive mechanisms. I am
| hoping we figure out how to use them to coordinate
| productively, rather than for financial schemes.
| zapataband1 wrote:
| I feel like it's just to difficult to pin down what area of ai
| will improve. For example what about an AI that is relatively
| powerful at brute force decryption(not sure if this violates
| some thermodynamic principle). Or even just an AI that can
| easily find exploitable websites. Things like that destroy
| trust in systems and probably large systems like gov or
| corporations have more to lose if information is up for grabs.
| But maybe it's the opposite way around. Hard to tell imo
| bugfix-66 wrote:
| 43 days ago I asked this question:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33215740
|
| This question got voted down everywhere I discussed it on Hacker
| News, but somehow the submission itself got 11 points.
| Apparently, it is an offensive question to some silent, pro-
| censorship part of the population here. Today I'll ask it again,
| and I hope somebody will respond in a useful way:
|
| QUESTION:
|
| I write software for parallel processors at a hardware/software
| company you've heard of. I am located in California but many of
| my coworkers are located in China (roughly half the team).
|
| We are directly affected by the American government's severe new
| CPU/GPU export restrictions.
|
| It seems to me that America is preparing for a period of cold
| war, or worse.
|
| It's time to start thinking about contributing to the American
| war effort by writing high-performance military computing
| systems.
|
| For example, SIMD particle filters for hypersonic weapons, or
| low-latency convolutional neural networks for battlefield
| devices.
|
| So, Hacker News: What company is the best place to do this work?
| What team?
|
| Does anyone here already work in this field?
| phdelightful wrote:
| If you can tolerate a .gov email address, there are high-
| performance computing, edge computing, and AI groups at DOE
| labs. My impression is that they're always starved for talent
| in these areas due to stiff competition from industry and
| lifestyle restrictions that come with a security clearance
| (being a US citizen, reduced international travel, no drugs
| other than alcohol and nicotine, your work may require on-
| site). Defense labs are probably similar.
| abeyer wrote:
| A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
| capitalsigma wrote:
| Not super clear to me how useful computer vision algorithms are
| to the military. The important thing in the private sector is
| replacing (say) the lab tech who would otherwise be paid minimum
| wage to look through your data. If you have plenty of low skill
| labor available, what advantage do you get?
| _carbyau_ wrote:
| Outright speed, speed of scalability.
|
| If you can submit what you want and have it within moments, it
| beats a fancy typing pool. That kind of speed alone lets you
| have a highly trained someone retry different variations and
| filter more on quality of result.
|
| Scalability. If you need to do it ten times faster. More
| hardware = done. More people _could_ make it done too but
| training etc is required.
| [deleted]
| thoweiru3o43 wrote:
| Half the kids in US grad-schools are Chinese. The other half are
| Indian. Neither are particularly fond of the racial-religious
| notions of 'US hegemony'.
|
| Good luck keeping your 'supremacy'.
| [deleted]
| RivieraKid wrote:
| I want to live in a world where liberal democracies have the
| most power over the world. The power of China, Russia, Iran or
| North Korea should be minimized.
| pshc wrote:
| Must funnel ever increasing resources into wasteful and
| destructive conflict.
|
| How about using AI to figure out how to cooperate at scale?
| remarkEon wrote:
| Determining ways to win a destructive conflict is a mechanism
| to signal willingness to cooperate, and the value of that
| cooperation (averting the war in the first place). Pretending
| they're mutually exclusive is wrong.
| pshc wrote:
| One problem with human governance is we can't seem to figure
| out how to coordinate without burning excessive amounts of
| energy signalling status and power at each other. What if we
| could do better?
| remarkEon wrote:
| What exactly do you imagine as "doing better", here?
| cellis wrote:
| If you never lift weights, and everyone else around you does,
| don't be surprised when the "cooperation" tilts in their favor.
| Such is the nature of man.
| photochemsyn wrote:
| Some of this could be interpreted as satire. For example, it's
| not necessary to improve AI capabilities in order to generate
| believeable propaganda - nation-states have been doing that ever
| since the printed press was invented, and before. It certainly
| reached a fever pitch in the 20th century, with radio,
| television, print and internet media all being the scene of
| numerous pitched propaganda battles, with social media being
| (perhaps) the dominant information-warfare battleground of the
| 21st century.
|
| As far as the Ukraine drone war, that's not really different from
| the Afghan drone war, the main difference being the relative lack
| of energy infrastructure or heavy armor to attack in Afghanistan.
| Whatever one can say about Russia vs NATO-backed Ukraine, or the
| USA vs Afghanistan, neither serves much purpose for making
| predictions about an 'all-out war' between China and the United
| States.
|
| One glaring omission is the failure to recognize that China is a
| nuclear power (as its ally North Korea), and it's not hard to
| imagine a serious naval conflict between the USA and China going
| nuclear - what better way to eliminate an offshore aircraft
| carrier battle group, for example? This article mentions nuclear
| once (in a 1942 context) and barely discusses what a real naval
| conflict would look like, other than to claim that 'autonomous
| adaptive drone swarms' would be harder targets to than aircraft
| carriers. That's a science fiction story line from, say, the Iain
| M. Banks Culture novels, not a realistic scenario for naval
| warfare (and what about submarines?).
|
| All in all this reads like a bit of hyperventilation, or maybe a
| sales pitch put together by the AI warfare divisions of Lockheed
| and Northrup. It also ignores the rationale for 'having a human
| in the loop', but then maybe the author hasn't seen the 1980s
| movie War Games?
| jasmer wrote:
| This is relevant document.
|
| The ability to automate and make 'good quality' content is
| decisive in the information space. The world is greatly moved
| by photos and video of horrible things, and if that can be
| faked with high fidelity it will make a huge difference. People
| won't have time for the truth - the 'video' of 'whatever' will
| make it's impact.
|
| The drone war in Ukraine is completely different from that in
| Afghanistan. The Baryaktar drones are almost useless, have an
| average lifespan of just a few weeks. They're almost all
| destroyed and don't play an important role. FYI many of the
| Baryaktar videos we saw over the months were released over
| time, as the units were mostly destroyed. Russia has no
| equivalent. Small drones are used for recon, target
| acquisition, dropping small munitions, which is nothing like
| Afghanistan. And the scale of it as well. We're seeing the firs
| 'small drone war at scale'.
|
| I suggest China, being China, will try it at real scale, and
| during the invasion of Taiwan I expect to see swarms of
| thousands of drones on the offence - overwhelming numbers.
|
| Everyone is aware that 'nuclear weapons exist' and also that AI
| works to varying degrees of autonomy.
| Gatsky wrote:
| I doubt China would just blow up a bunch of American aircraft
| carriers with a nuclear weapon, unless they were under
| existential threat. China would be severely disadvantaged in a
| nuclear conflict I would have thought, and would try not to go
| there under any circumstances. North Korea even moreso. As
| such, non-nuclear approaches remain relevant.
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| The AI war will be won by the faction having the best datasets,
| and China has no limits when it comes to collecting data.
|
| The Chinese government is all-knowing and all-seeing. They are
| also above the law and can do whatever they want.
| tomrod wrote:
| > China has no limits when it comes to collecting data
|
| This is an overgeneralization when it comes to the sources and
| types of data used in a battlefield, to map infrastructure, and
| so forth.
|
| While the Great Firewall and social monitoring do collect much
| data on the population, thereby decreasing non-state internal
| intelligence gathering and capability for spying, there is a
| difference between tactical data from a hot front and
| identification of spies.
| gavin_gee wrote:
| The prudent thing is to invest in the technology even if china
| isnt.
| jasonshen wrote:
| As a naturalized US citizen who was born in China but intends to
| raise a family as full-bore Americans, it's hard for me to assess
| the China threat.
|
| I believe China very much wants to assert it's influence in the
| Asia Pacific + MENA region, but I just don't it trying to conquer
| the United States directly. It's never really had a history of
| imperialism like the West has (excluding the Mongol empire that
| collapsed almost immediately).
|
| That said, a country doesn't need to directly conquer another to
| be a threat. Still, it's hard to know how serious the threat
| really is--the post is compelling but also assumes as a forgone
| conclusion that China has aggressor ambitions.
| bsder wrote:
| The longer Xi Jingping stays in power the less I worry about
| China on the international stage.
|
| The subleaders will need to do increasingly extreme things in
| order to show results to the Supreme Leader. That's starting to
| play out--the Apple shakedown, Chinese police stations in
| foreign countries, etc. Those things have _finally_ gotten the
| Western powers to realize that China is a genuine enemy, and
| they are starting to retaliate.
|
| In addition, now that Russia has basically been dismantled, the
| defense system in America needs a new boogeyman.
| Congratulations, China, you're on deck.
| thoweiru3o43 wrote:
| > Russia has basically been dismantled
|
| Western press proving day-in day-out how primitive Pravda
| was.
| rdevsrex wrote:
| Oh my god that's so true. It's like they've invented hire
| order lying.
| RivieraKid wrote:
| Russia hasn't been dismantled unfortunately. There's a good
| chance they end up with more territory.
| jasmer wrote:
| Russia is definitely taken apart. They may be able to hold
| that bit of territory with suicidal bodies in trenches, but
| they are in really bad shape.
|
| They are down to ancient weapons, ancient tanks, their Navy
| almost entirely defunct.
|
| Most of their 'fast air' remains.
|
| And they are going to have a very difficult time rebuilding
| with sanctions, and the severe economic problems with
| talent and resources.
|
| They could 'come back' over a decade but I suggest Europe
| is becoming ready for that, and without the offer on the
| table of a nice, juicy, undefended territory, neither Putin
| nor his successors will have much luck.
|
| It's the ambiguity that's the problem.
| bsder wrote:
| Which will simply become controlled by China--if Russia can
| even hold onto the territory (this winter will be telling).
|
| Russia is now effectively a pending Chinese vassal state
| caused by their coming rebuild. No one else is going to
| support them, and Russia has wiped out a big chunk of their
| workforce--both young labor as well as older brainpower.
| So, Russia will have to turn to China for both labor and
| brainpower at the cost of sovereignty.
|
| The only thing that would prevent Russia from becoming a
| Chinese vassal is if they somehow wind up with a leader
| smart enough to pair up with India.
| RivieraKid wrote:
| The threat is increasing influence across the world.
| cercatrova wrote:
| I wonder how the world would be different had Zheng He sailed
| his junks east rather than west.
| caligarn wrote:
| China was never an imperial force like European colonists, but
| it always saw itself as the "Middle Kingdom" and the most
| important civilization on earth. It may be a different paradigm
| but the right to power or hegemony is still embedded in the
| culture and ethos.
| jasmer wrote:
| It was - and still wishes to be 'Imperial' in it's direct
| sphere of influence, which is to say, most of E and S/E Asia.
|
| China is not ever going to invade the USA of course.
| woooooo wrote:
| It's actually a healthy and non-threatening paradigm?
|
| If they think they're the best and have no reason to expand
| because of that, the only threat is to our egos.
| frognumber wrote:
| Tribute. China always expected tribute from its neighbors.
|
| The benefits in return for tribute were often greater than
| the tribute, but it did show a high level of domination of
| its neighbors for most of its history.
| [deleted]
| nyolfen wrote:
| maybe you should tell that to the tibetans, uyghurs,
| taiwanese, etc.
| china_lol_throw wrote:
| XorNot wrote:
| What do you think imperialism is other then "exert influence"?
| anshumankmr wrote:
| Also,China has invaded India and claims many Indian states as
| its own.
|
| Plus it invaded Vietnam (and lost)
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| Extract taxes, i.e., the Roman version?
| random314 wrote:
| Considering American aggression in Iraq and Latin America,
| China is a dove. However, it is true that China has been
| aggressively expanding borders into half of its neighboring
| countries. They are also extremely internally aggressive
| committing genocide against Uyghurs, Tibetans, Falun gong etc.
|
| A counter balance to the American threat is not a bad thing.
| nyokodo wrote:
| > It's never really had a history of imperialism like the West
| has
|
| Vietnam, Tibet, Mongolia, and Xinjiang might beg to differ and
| that's before considering that the leader of China was
| literally an emperor up until recently. However, if by
| "imperialism" you mean across oceans and hemispheres then point
| taken but that isn't really a virtue as China has never had a
| navy capable of doing so. It still doesn't although it sorely
| wants to.
|
| > the post... assumes as a forgone conclusion that China has
| aggressor ambitions.
|
| With the advent of wolf warrior diplomacy, the aggressive and
| illegal construction of military bases in disputed waters all
| over the South China Sea, the interference in US elections, the
| rampant IP theft along with constant attempts to steal military
| secrets, along with threats of total war whenever the US
| sneezes in the direction of Taiwan... what would you think?
| moris_borris wrote:
| > wolf warrior diplomacy, the aggressive and illegal
| construction of military bases in disputed waters all over
| the South China Sea, the interference in US elections, the
| rampant IP theft along with constant attempts to steal
| military secrets, along with threats of total war whenever
| the US sneezes in the direction of Taiwan
|
| Dyed in the wool American here. All of these pale in
| comparison to the history of our my nation, which has been at
| war with much of the world for most of its existence. Rampant
| IP theft is nothing compared to the bombing of civilian
| infrastructure in Iraq (among other countries in the Middle
| East) during the 1990s and 2000s, the clusterfuck of
| atrocities that was the Vietnam War, to say nothing of our
| extensive support for dictators in Latin America throughout
| the 20th century. When it comes to interfering with elections
| (and indeed the results of them), we put China to shame. I
| love my country, but I can't pretend that our military
| industrial complex has been anything but a threat to
| countless other nations and will certainly continue to do so.
| ilaksh wrote:
| Good points. But that doesn't mean China won't copy this.
| Because the model for global power has always been ruthless
| force. One empire after another.
| rdevsrex wrote:
| Well said, I was thinking the exact same thing. This guy
| acts like this is a foregone conclusion that we must have
| war. It's a choice to stand back or to stand up.
|
| And given the aforementioned disparities, we should really
| consider if giving China it's space in a multi polar world
| is more in our best interest than going to war to keep the
| hegemony alive.
| stephen_g wrote:
| Not to mention that IP theft in the late 18th into the 19th
| century was basically the bedrock upon which the US's
| industrial and economic systems were built...
| mc32 wrote:
| The Berne and Paris conventions didn't come to be till
| the late 1800s --which both the US and China are
| signatories of.
| r3muxd wrote:
| With all due respect, has the author ever watched _WarGames
| (1983)_?
| poopboob wrote:
| Let's see
|
| Alex is the CEO of Scale
|
| Scale is a DOD Contractor
|
| Scale is an AI company
|
| Alex suggests DOD allocate funds for AI
|
| Here's some news from someone who has seen the AI leaderboard
| game closely and led teams that won some
|
| Leaderboards like COCO that Alex cites are not a good indicator.
| They are flooded incremental performance improvements that hardly
| translate to any real world application
| greatpostman wrote:
| Either he's trying to be manipulative by using that data, or he
| doesn't understand "ai"
| ethbr0 wrote:
| >> (from TFA) _In the past 5 years, the United States has still
| not started, let alone operationalized, a major AI capability
| that could disrupt our current warfighter._
|
| When he misses or conveniently ignores the Skyborg UCAV program
| from the Air Force [0], I also question the author's knowledge
| of the current state of military programs.
|
| [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyborg
| phdelightful wrote:
| Can the US taxpayer tolerate (financially, politically) what it
| will take to get the best and brightest to do AI work for .gov
| and .mil instead of adtech? All you have to do is look at defense
| lab salaries to see there is going to be a problem keeping talent
| around. Some people are certainly willing to take a pay cut to
| work on national defense, but probably not enough. Perhaps
| especially not the kind of person who went into adtech in the
| first place.
| jasmer wrote:
| Paycheques are very hard to walk away from but a lot of very
| bright minds will go into defence right out of school and never
| look back.
| remarkEon wrote:
| The way to short circuit this is to make certain classes of
| adtech de facto (maybe even de jure) illegal.
| jonas21 wrote:
| This isn't going to happen by recruiting people to work for
| government labs. It'll happen by contracting the work out to
| companies that are already doing top AI research (many of which
| also work in adtech) and through grand challenges that
| incentivize research teams and startups to make new
| breakthroughs.
|
| Google, for example, would have gladly accepted Project Maven
| contracts if its own employees hadn't protested. If China does
| supersede the U.S. militarily, that may end up looking naive in
| retrospect.
| phdelightful wrote:
| I basically agree. I don't think the political mechanisms
| exist in the short-to-intermediate term to get salaries in
| government labs high enough. As you point out, the extent to
| which "civilians" will be willing to participate in these
| lines of work is an open question (said without judgement,
| just as an observation). Presumably folks who have opted-in
| to work at defense contractors will be more willing, but do
| they have the ability to attract a sufficient amount of
| talent in this area?
| Sebguer wrote:
| Ah, yes, the solution is to cede more of the country to
| corporations!
| phdelightful wrote:
| People who feel strongly that current procurement
| strategies are the wrong way to go about things should
| devote as much toil and treasure as they can to seeing
| their preferred solution materialize. In the mean time, I
| hope they will allow others to work within our existing
| system to keep our adversaries from replacing the US with
| something much worse for the entire world.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| With government salary bands what they are, there is
| nothing they really can do.
| madmax96 wrote:
| Is it wise to compare spending within defense budgets between
| these countries? Much AI research in the US is conducted by
| private firms. How does the current defense budget compare to
| historical defense budgets, such as during the early days of the
| digital computer in the Cold War?
|
| On a related note: yes, Chinese researchers have models that
| perform certain tasks well. But are those models useful in the
| contexts the author mentions?
|
| To be sure, I don't disagree that AI research needs funded. I'm
| just genuinely curious about these points.
| greatpostman wrote:
| I'm still confused by ai fear mongering. All the best models and
| advances come from the USA. Chinese research, while high in
| volume, never advances state of the art aside from incremental
| improvement.
|
| Incoming downvotes, but the fact remains most advanced have
| basically come from google, Fb and openai
| ETHisso2017 wrote:
| Simple, Scale AI is likely fishing for federal contracts now
| that its traditional enterprise customer set is throttling back
| on spending
| species9606 wrote:
| Exactly this. The "AI race" is yet another nuclear arms race,
| where the American public is terrified into believing in some
| sort of (nonexistent) capabilities gap, and the only way to
| avoid utter defeat is to funnel billions, eventually
| trillions, of dollars to the right companies.
| willbudd wrote:
| That's simply not true. There are numerous problem domains in
| AI where Chinese research groups are advancing the SOTA, or at
| least are well-presented at the forefront. Your comment reads
| like little more than casual racism to me.
| airgapstopgap wrote:
| jackblemming wrote:
| Such as?
| greatpostman wrote:
| No I read the academic research all the time. Most state of
| the art papers take an existing method and incrementally
| change the model to get a better result. They aren't real
| advances. Anyone that actually publishes and works in the
| field knows this. Basically all major advances have come from
| Fb/google
| Gatsky wrote:
| Although this seems true at first glance, it is likely that
| state sponsored cutting edge Chinese AI research would not be
| disseminated publicly. China does also have certain
| 'advantages' in the ethics and scale of training data
| collection.
| lsy wrote:
| This is a very urgent-sounding article about China's supposed AI
| superpowers and how they will dominate the battlefield,
| coincidentally written by the head of an American "AI" company
| who would likely personally benefit from shifting $150B into AI
| research, as suggested. Complete with AI-industry standard claims
| about technology that is "less than 10 years away", and sci-fi
| about "autonomous, adaptive drone swarms".
|
| War is _so_ much more complicated than the author wants readers
| to think. Raw technological dominance does not assure victory, as
| the US found after 20 years in Afghanistan. AI, for all its
| impressive feats, continues to operate without flexibility or
| common sense, and foundational concepts like geography or
| economic influence remain the most important contributors to
| success in the military sphere.
|
| Even if one takes the continuance of the DoD's aims as an
| unalloyed good, what areas of its budget would go unserved with
| 25% redirected to AI research? How do those cuts or
| reprioritizations affect US military capability? I don't suspect
| the author has thought about this very much, and yet he feels
| qualified to write yet another AI/China scare article, which more
| and more seem designed to terrify politicians who determine
| funding rather than to convince military experts.
| 300bps wrote:
| To your point, I literally laughed out loud at this in the
| article:
|
| _Based on the pace of progress with AI technology today, I
| believe this is less than 10 years away._
|
| How does anyone write things like this and expect to be taken
| seriously with the track record of AI regarding real world
| things like autonomous driving?
| [deleted]
| superb-owl wrote:
| I've been skeptical of AI posing an existential risk.
|
| This article may have changed my mind.
| pellucide wrote:
| Summary: China bad, because.... AI
| ETHisso2017 wrote:
| In 2021, Alex Wang of Scale (the author of the linked article)
| uncritically quoted the following from Eric Schmidt:
|
| "Eric states that the global growth of AI technology is a
| national security threat for the United States. In March, we
| believed we were ahead of China's technological development in
| the AI sector, but they quickly showed us that we were wrong. By
| June, they'd demonstrated a model capable of producing human-like
| text that was comparable to OpenAI's GPT-3 model in quality."
|
| https://scale.com/blog/Eric-Schmidt-Geopolitics-TransformX-S...
|
| As such, it's important to note that the author views the entire
| Chinese AI industry as a threat to the United States, and may
| believe that the growth of AI anywhere in the rest of the world
| is a threat to the United States.
| remarkEon wrote:
| Is there a reason that I should think of Wang as uniquely
| qualified to comment on this space? He runs an AI startup,
| seems knowledgeable about AI in general, but what does he know
| about war?
| bloodyplonker22 wrote:
| Fair question, but I don't think one needs to be very skilled
| in the arts of war and military tactics to foresee that AI
| will be important in the future of war. I don't think it's
| worth throwing our dear Wang's blog out the window for this.
| The points he makes about AI's involvement in the future of
| war are very broad and high level. For example, he compares
| the amount of money that each country is spending on AI in
| the military and concludes that the US is lagging. It would
| be interesting if we had someone, like Palmer Luckey, who is
| actually involved in military AI speak in more detail about
| it.
| remarkEon wrote:
| Right, they are high level points, which is why I am having
| a hard time finding something specific to critique or even
| disagree with.
|
| For example, when I think of the question of "how will AI
| be used" the obvious answer, which Wang more or less
| addresses, is targeting systems. Basically, we're just
| going to automate all of that and instead of a bunch of
| captains in the S2 shop cooking up target packets and
| deciding which one makes the most sense, the AI just does
| all of this for us.
|
| But what does this actually _mean_? Can we obsolete some
| /most/all of the S2 shop and replace it with a container of
| servers stacked with GPUs to do imagine processing? Take
| that manpower and add another infantry platoon? A drone
| operations platoon?
| qualudeheart wrote:
| A great theoretician would pose the question this way. Can
| what's playing the government make it to level two?
| qualudeheart wrote:
| AI is strong enough to decide who wins the economic fight.
| Prediction: 10% gdp growth year over year as we approahc general
| ai.
|
| The AI Economy will be a new reality. It may not be a good
| reality. Will it be your reality?
| largbae wrote:
| I am definitely afraid of mass data collection and drones, both
| for warfare and law enforcement. They lower the cost of coercing
| and if need be killing, both emotionally and financially.
|
| AI will lower this cost further, and enable fewer and fewer
| powerful people to threaten or control the rest.
|
| The Chinese government has so far turned much of its technology
| inward toward the control of its own people, who seem either OK
| with it or unable to resist. Perhaps they are just early
| adopters, and one by one all governments will follow their
| example, first trusting their own judgment more than the will of
| their constituents, and then using technology to keep it that
| way.
|
| We may not need a world war 3, or even an external adversary to
| lose this race. How about we spend more time on defensive
| technologies for individuals and laws protecting their use?
| rdevsrex wrote:
| I've seen a number of various voices speaking up about the
| possibility of a turn key totalitarian state in the US. Where
| everything is in place and waiting for some just to turn it on.
| That is the worst case scenario here.
|
| That said obviously we can resist, but it is worrying.
| somenameforme wrote:
| This article seemingly handwaves away the single most important
| factor in modern war between major powers: nukes. If two major
| powers go to war, and it's a real war in the sense of one trying
| to directly conquer the other's land then that's going to, near
| immediately, escalate to mutual nuclear annihilation. AI doesn't
| change this basic and now decades old formula in any way, shape,
| or fashion.
|
| I'd also add that the article fails to mention that the wargames
| we keep losing are not outright nation vs nation war, but instead
| over things like Taiwan. We're trying to win a war at a location
| 10,000 miles away against a country 100 miles away. Overextension
| is at the heart of the decline of all great Empires.
| bee_rider wrote:
| I dunno. I mean, yeah technology will be used in war, and
| counties ahead in technology will usually be able to design
| better weapons. But like:
|
| > Technologies including drones, AI-based targeting and imagery
| intelligence, and Javelin missiles have allowed for a shocking
| defense of Ukraine against Russia
|
| What is "AI-based targeting and imagery intelligence," is it
| being used in Ukraine, and why is it sandwiched between two
| media-darling weapon systems? This kinda reduces my faith in the
| honestly of the author here. Does anyone know about weapons
| development, is he pulling a fast one?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-11-28 05:01 UTC)