The Pentagon inches toward letting AI control weapons(wired.com)
wired.com
The Pentagon inches toward letting AI control weapons
https://www.wired.com/story/pentagon-inches-toward-letting-ai-control-weapons/
89 comments
While there are obvious perils here, I fear it would be tremendously irresponsible to let our adversaries own this space. AI weapons must be developed if for no other reason than to battle AI weapons.
Now I understand how the anti-nuclear people in the 20th century felt.
Nuclear MAD seems to have worked out well, so far.
The problem is that MAD is only reliable in the absence of proliferation, but we go to such lengths to prevent proliferation that it causes other problems. When you get down to it a nuke is not that that hard to build with the resources available to almost any state, so the fragility of deterrence has a distorting effect on international relations.
"so far" included very many near misses - where individuals with explicit authority to launch counter attacks were in position to decide whether to launch NUCLEAR MISSILES AT A COUNTRY -- because some sensors malfunctioned.
See Stanislav Petrov - the man who prevented an apocalypse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov
See Stanislav Petrov - the man who prevented an apocalypse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov
Yes. I'll take near misses with nuclear Armageddon over total war.
The anti-nuclear weapons crowd conveniently forgets that the alternative to MAD isn't reliably peace.
The anti-nuclear weapons crowd conveniently forgets that the alternative to MAD isn't reliably peace.
What % chance of nuclear holocaust per year are you wiling to take over the "non reliable peace"?
We're talking about potential existential risk - a wiping out of all of humanity (through severe ecological poisoning after a barrage of cross-globe nuclear strikes).
We're talking about potential existential risk - a wiping out of all of humanity (through severe ecological poisoning after a barrage of cross-globe nuclear strikes).
0.01%?
If my math works out, that's a 10% chance of an occurrence every 1,000 years.
If my math works out, that's a 10% chance of an occurrence every 1,000 years.
Thank you for providing a number. I have seen estimates of what the risk was - as high as 1% per year for much of the duration of the Cold War.
So if we said '55 - '90 (35 years), that'd be a 30% chance of nukes being launched @ 1% yearly risk.
That's more on the fence for me.
On one hand, it's high (and the impact would have been catastrophic!). On the other hand, it prevented NATO / Warsaw Pact mechanized conflict across Europe (which also would have been catastrophic).
Tough call. Especially with the uncertainty that, were you to give up your nuclear weapons, there's no guarantee your counterparties would actually do the same.
In the 60s foundational position papers, there's definitely a strong thread of "We will commit to MAD not because it's the best approach, but because it's the best zero trust approach."
That's more on the fence for me.
On one hand, it's high (and the impact would have been catastrophic!). On the other hand, it prevented NATO / Warsaw Pact mechanized conflict across Europe (which also would have been catastrophic).
Tough call. Especially with the uncertainty that, were you to give up your nuclear weapons, there's no guarantee your counterparties would actually do the same.
In the 60s foundational position papers, there's definitely a strong thread of "We will commit to MAD not because it's the best approach, but because it's the best zero trust approach."
> That's more on the fence for me.
What? You claimed you are comfortable with 0.01% chance, but now you're "on the fence" with a 1% chance?
An analogy: some chance of your child being occasionally bullied in school, or a 0% chance of bullying but a 30% chance they'll get murdered.
You say "tough call" -- and I'm baffled.
What? You claimed you are comfortable with 0.01% chance, but now you're "on the fence" with a 1% chance?
An analogy: some chance of your child being occasionally bullied in school, or a 0% chance of bullying but a 30% chance they'll get murdered.
You say "tough call" -- and I'm baffled.
Comfortable and on the fence are two different points, no?
I asked "What % chance of nuclear holocaust per year are you wiling to take?"
It is bizzarre to answer 0.01% only to follow up with "well, I could take 0.9% too"
My question obviously implied "what's the maximum you're willing to tolerate" - else you could have just said 0% -- conveying zero information.
It is bizzarre to answer 0.01% only to follow up with "well, I could take 0.9% too"
My question obviously implied "what's the maximum you're willing to tolerate" - else you could have just said 0% -- conveying zero information.
Total war will not leave the planet radioactive and uninhabitable. Absolute worst case is something analogous to damage of WWII. (Note: we survived WWII.)
Armageddon is lights out for humanity.
Armageddon is lights out for humanity.
WWII was fought with the science and economic might of the 1930/40s. We've come a bit farther since then.
People seem to seriously lack imagination concerning what a scientific and economic major power might do if its existence were threatened by a hated enemy. (Gene drives, anyone?)
People seem to seriously lack imagination concerning what a scientific and economic major power might do if its existence were threatened by a hated enemy. (Gene drives, anyone?)
...until it doesn't. I would highly recommend a visit to Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum if you'd like a different perspective on nuclear weapons, rather than a American/western one.
And...man, I wish we had that $5.5 trillion back [https://www.brookings.edu/the-hidden-costs-of-our-nuclear-ar...].
And...man, I wish we had that $5.5 trillion back [https://www.brookings.edu/the-hidden-costs-of-our-nuclear-ar...].
See also: Guernica, Warsaw, Dresden, London, Wesel, Tokyo, Hargeisa.
Nuclear weapons are bigger explosives. Not different explosives.
Nuclear weapons are bigger explosives. Not different explosives.
Every one of those cities was bombed for weeks, sometimes months. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were single bombs. They cause massive radiation exposure and fallout. Tens of thousands of people were poisoned to death in the aftermath of the Japanese bombings. You haven't seen the suffering of those people and cannot even imagine the hell they were subjected to. And today, we have weapons hundreds of times as powerful. City-ending megaweapons by the thousands. And yes, nuclear winter is a real thing too; we could very seriously impact the global climate and cause mass extinctions in a couple of hours. A nuclear war is a planet-scale atrocity that will ends billions of human lives.
I've been to the Hiroshima museum. Like I said, it will change your perspective. I'm not really all that inclined to continue this interchange given your flippance.
I've been to the Hiroshima museum. Like I said, it will change your perspective. I'm not really all that inclined to continue this interchange given your flippance.
If you want to dismiss 100,000 Tokyo citizens burning to death in two nights because it doesn't fit the narrative of "nuclear is the worst," then that's your decision.
But personally, I consider them equally horrific. And as stated previously, if MAD prevents either from happening, the risk seems worth it.
But personally, I consider them equally horrific. And as stated previously, if MAD prevents either from happening, the risk seems worth it.
[deleted]
Famous last words.
As an AI practitioner, I want us invest in research to manipulate other AI military systems but not use AI ourselves.
Take a page from the HFT book.
As an AI practitioner, I want us invest in research to manipulate other AI military systems but not use AI ourselves.
Take a page from the HFT book.
I am curious where you would draw the line between "AI military systems" and existing systems in use such as Iron Dome and other algorithm-assisted weapons.
Two obvious dimensions are:
- agency: the machine makes decisions on its own.
- defensive vs offensive action
- agency: the machine makes decisions on its own.
- defensive vs offensive action
> - defensive vs offensive action
So if Iron dome launches a rocket in defense it's okay, but that rocket mustn't use AI to find its target? I see your general point, but that's going to be a line that's very hard to draw.
So if Iron dome launches a rocket in defense it's okay, but that rocket mustn't use AI to find its target? I see your general point, but that's going to be a line that's very hard to draw.
Perhaps I'm missing something, but that first dimension seems far from obvious. To continue my Iron Dome example, isn't the system making decisions on its own when intercepting anything it classifies as an incoming ballistic threats?
These are obvious dimensions that need to be considered. Of course there can be discussion as to boundaries drawn in that (here 2-d) space as to 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable'. There may be other dimensions as well, such as 'decision making input sources', etc.
As to your specific example, while system x may have 'full agency (autonomous, willful)', if it is purely 'defensive' in nature, it may indeed fall within acceptable zone.
As to your specific example, while system x may have 'full agency (autonomous, willful)', if it is purely 'defensive' in nature, it may indeed fall within acceptable zone.
And as for completely offensive weapons controlled by humans?
Your metric seems arbitrary. Why (only) two dimensions?
Your metric seems arbitrary. Why (only) two dimensions?
Well, you already watered it down to be a worthless principle when "AI bad" became "AI sometimes bad". OP said "not use AI". Using AI for example in missiles for defence is an offensive weapon as after the defense by the AI you are stronger than without it and you cannot take out missiles without attacking. The point is to attack the enemy's AI system without using AI. Otherwise it's still the same AI versus AI race that will most likely end bad for humans at some point.
I completely agree, and as an ML researcher, having that opinion feels heretical. So many people are of a “do no harm” mindset that I worry it means “or I won’t work with you.” And I quite like working with various researchers.
I mentioned it publicly once, and I’m bracing for the day that some established researcher quote tweets it and says “we do not need this kind of thinking in our community, and we have a duty to exclude it” or some such.
I don’t care much though. You seem right, and that’s good enough for me.
I mentioned it publicly once, and I’m bracing for the day that some established researcher quote tweets it and says “we do not need this kind of thinking in our community, and we have a duty to exclude it” or some such.
I don’t care much though. You seem right, and that’s good enough for me.
We need researchers who will follow their moral instincts far more than we need researchers who care about conforming to the sociocultural norm. So, thank you.
I guess I shouldn’t just say “researchers” —- it’s what we need in our citizens of humanity.
I guess I shouldn’t just say “researchers” —- it’s what we need in our citizens of humanity.
you are directly contradicting the code of military command, prepare for social credit demotion! </snark>
There is a science fiction novel by Stanisław Lem titled Peace on Earth which touches this topic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_on_Earth_(novel)
> The evolution of artificial intelligence has allowed major world powers to sign a rather curious treaty: the Moon is divided into national zones (proportional to each nation's Earth real estate) and all weapons development and production must be moved there to be handled by factories. This is supposed to completely demilitarize Earth, achieving the long-sought dream of world peace. A MAD stabilizing factor is apparently preserved by the ability of countries, in case of war, to quickly ship weapons down from the Moon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_on_Earth_(novel)
> The evolution of artificial intelligence has allowed major world powers to sign a rather curious treaty: the Moon is divided into national zones (proportional to each nation's Earth real estate) and all weapons development and production must be moved there to be handled by factories. This is supposed to completely demilitarize Earth, achieving the long-sought dream of world peace. A MAD stabilizing factor is apparently preserved by the ability of countries, in case of war, to quickly ship weapons down from the Moon.
I disagree. While I concede that, if there is credible information that an adversary is developing AI weapons that need to be counterbalanced to reach some sort of Nash equilibrium, simply putting time and effort into the development of any adversarial technology will turn up the temperature in the space, so to speak. More work in this area means more capability, more complexity, more risk of misuse, and a heightened risk of the possibility of additional actors. Look no further than the theory of deterrence, and how it shifted from a tolerable short term strategy during the Cold War (one with few actors), to a high risk strategy as the trove of technology was enlarged, the likelihood of it spreading increased, and the number of active and potential actors increased dramatically also.
In my view AI weapons development demands a judicious, steady, paced, and thoroughly informed approach to keep the whole space from burning up —- figuratively and literally.
In my view AI weapons development demands a judicious, steady, paced, and thoroughly informed approach to keep the whole space from burning up —- figuratively and literally.
High risk strategy? Deterrence via MAD is overwhelmingly what keeps the relative peace between the major nuclear powers.
It’s not a great situation overall, but you couldn’t uninvent nukes at that point, so it has proven remarkably effective thus far.
Same dynamic with AI/ML —- can’t uninvent. If one aggression-minded power has it, balance will be required for stability.
It’s not a great situation overall, but you couldn’t uninvent nukes at that point, so it has proven remarkably effective thus far.
Same dynamic with AI/ML —- can’t uninvent. If one aggression-minded power has it, balance will be required for stability.
100% disagree. We have treaties that prevent use of gas weapons. We need governments to coordinate and cooperate rather than race each other to murderous death.
https://www.stopkillerrobots.org/
https://www.stopkillerrobots.org/
A cynic would say that we only banned chemical weapons because they weren't particularly useful in major power combat.
See: cluster munition and mine bans
See: cluster munition and mine bans
That cynic would be wrong since chemical weapons are extremely effective in combat. When the scales aren't even (i.e. something like the vietnam war) the stronger side can afford equipment that allows their soldiers to operate effectively while the other side is unable to respond to aggression greatly lowering expected casualties. With powers on par you still have the factor of well coordinated chemical attacks allowing breakthroughs to be executed much easier.
Chemical weapons being banned is an example of a mostly inexplicably altruistic action on the part of major powers. Well, inexplicable if you're a cynic.
Chemical weapons being banned is an example of a mostly inexplicably altruistic action on the part of major powers. Well, inexplicable if you're a cynic.
Yes and no. There was still Agent orange in Vietnam. There is still uranium ammo in ie A-10 Warthog which provably sows all kinds of cancer and deformities in children being born in the area decades after usage. Not poisonous gases that burn your lungs per se, but generally if the deal is too sweet to refuse, it stays on the table for some time.
These aren’t really chemical weapons. They have a non-“chemical” primary use, and also happen to be toxic. Depleted uranium will harm people, but in timescales useless in a war (unless it hits them fast, that is).
Also, surely, none of those are anywhere near as bad as mustard gas. Yes, agent orange gives people cancer, but presumably not everyone (?), and anyway mustard gas immediately burns your lungs. That’s just a different league.
Also, surely, none of those are anywhere near as bad as mustard gas. Yes, agent orange gives people cancer, but presumably not everyone (?), and anyway mustard gas immediately burns your lungs. That’s just a different league.
Depleted uranium is actually a bit disfavored since most of the harm from handling the ammunition actually falls on the military using it. You get shot with a cannon round once, but someone needed to load and carry that round for days on end - it does have some really unfortunate side effects if it remains perpetually in an environment but it isn't enriched - it's depleted and, honestly, landmines are still a thing and cause way more damage.
My understanding is that DU tends to be favored for three primary reasons(ish)
1. It's super dense and thus packs a super hard punch in terms of momentum you can slug at a distance for a given caliber barrel.
2. It's incredibly hard and can deflect things that steel can't stand a chance against.
3. That momentum from firing is often high enough that it actually ignites on impact in most circumstances, causing a lot more material damage to whatever you're shooting.
DU might honestly be phased out soon anyways - it's primary strengths are that it's wicked heavy and not stupid soft like lead, but there are some replacements out there for it and a lot of countries have signed on to banning it in warfare - just not the big ones yet.
My understanding is that DU tends to be favored for three primary reasons(ish)
1. It's super dense and thus packs a super hard punch in terms of momentum you can slug at a distance for a given caliber barrel.
2. It's incredibly hard and can deflect things that steel can't stand a chance against.
3. That momentum from firing is often high enough that it actually ignites on impact in most circumstances, causing a lot more material damage to whatever you're shooting.
DU might honestly be phased out soon anyways - it's primary strengths are that it's wicked heavy and not stupid soft like lead, but there are some replacements out there for it and a lot of countries have signed on to banning it in warfare - just not the big ones yet.
> That cynic would be wrong since chemical weapons are extremely effective in combat.
They are not. It's the most ineffective weapon outside swords and bows.
A sibling comment provided the link discussing it: https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-ch...
They are not. It's the most ineffective weapon outside swords and bows.
A sibling comment provided the link discussing it: https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-ch...
Chemical weapons are great when you have a long line of densely packed, dug in troops. But much less so against modern armies that don't operate shoulder-to-shoulder and carry protection with them.
They are very effective against civilian populations though. Which is likely the real reason behind the ban. Especially when you consider that certain chemical weapons are only selectively banned; they can't be used against a target for toxicity, but it's completely fine to use it to use it in another manner. White phosphorous is most famous example if this, it's a war crime to poison people with it, but a-okay to light them on fire with it, even though that's a horrific way to die.
The only explanation for this hypocrisy is that chemical weapons don't have much value against military targets anymore. So substances are banned unless they are actually useful in other capacities.
They are very effective against civilian populations though. Which is likely the real reason behind the ban. Especially when you consider that certain chemical weapons are only selectively banned; they can't be used against a target for toxicity, but it's completely fine to use it to use it in another manner. White phosphorous is most famous example if this, it's a war crime to poison people with it, but a-okay to light them on fire with it, even though that's a horrific way to die.
The only explanation for this hypocrisy is that chemical weapons don't have much value against military targets anymore. So substances are banned unless they are actually useful in other capacities.
If and when the shit would hit the fan on a global scale, you will see everything exists- biological weapons, gas weapons, "inhumane" weapons of mass destruction, you name it.
Every major player has these and will show them when there is a global war.
Treaties do shit.
A slightly unrelated example: There are major laws that you can't kill a journalist in your embassy. But did those stop it from happening?
Every major player has these and will show them when there is a global war.
Treaties do shit.
A slightly unrelated example: There are major laws that you can't kill a journalist in your embassy. But did those stop it from happening?
I don’t think this particular genie can be kept in the out as easily as gas
> 100% disagree. We have treaties that prevent use of gas weapons.
I don't have a link, I read a pretty interesting analysis is that the only reason we have such treaties is because those weapons are ineffective against a 1st tier military and are also useless to them. Basically, defense is possible as the needed PPE is relatively cheap and can be used effectively by highly-trained troops, and high-tech conventional weapons used by a trained force are far more effective than gas.
So basically, those treaties were about giving up something advanced militaries would have abandoned anyway.
I don't have a link, I read a pretty interesting analysis is that the only reason we have such treaties is because those weapons are ineffective against a 1st tier military and are also useless to them. Basically, defense is possible as the needed PPE is relatively cheap and can be used effectively by highly-trained troops, and high-tech conventional weapons used by a trained force are far more effective than gas.
So basically, those treaties were about giving up something advanced militaries would have abandoned anyway.
> I don't have a link
It's probably this: https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-ch...
It's probably this: https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-ch...
That's it. Thanks!
It is better to have AI weapons fighting each other, then to have 19-24 years old fighting each other.
I imagine in a number of cases it will be more like AI weapons fighting 19-24 year olds.
True, but what option will you choice:
1. Send trained 19-30 years old to risk there's life, minimum civilian casualties, but highest chance of combat casualties.
2. Bomb urban area out of existence, with massive civilian casualties, medium chance of combat casualties.
3. Send terminators with medium civilian causalities and 0 combat casualties.
1. Send trained 19-30 years old to risk there's life, minimum civilian casualties, but highest chance of combat casualties.
2. Bomb urban area out of existence, with massive civilian casualties, medium chance of combat casualties.
3. Send terminators with medium civilian causalities and 0 combat casualties.
I wonder how developed nations will deal with #3s being deployed on their shores. It might be much easier to sneak in Terminators than any sorts of bombs. And the terror factor would be off the charts.
If you take people out of war, wars are more likely to happen. There will be less opposition from the public when it's just "toasters" and "microwaves" (electronics) being sent overseas to fight "the bad guys".
Given the track record of how many unjust wars that have been fought, we need more preventative measures against wars, not more technology to make wars easier and more palatable.
Given the track record of how many unjust wars that have been fought, we need more preventative measures against wars, not more technology to make wars easier and more palatable.
Are you thinking battles happen in open fields with no one around other than rows of opposing forces? Do you think no bad actors are going to have access to such weapons? The world is a lot more complex than what you describe.
How did you made such conclusions from my sentence, I don't really understand.
Civilians will suffer the most in wars and in violent conflict times.
Urban warfare is the highest intensity warfare, with highest casualty rates both combat and civilians.
First failed attempt of drone attack with chemical weapon was in 90's in Japan, I believe this if first recorded attempt of terrorist attack using drone.
AI warfare with sci-fi flying, crawling, walking terminators will be more humane then carpet bombing population into oblivion (Soviet–Afghan War and Vietnam War), it will have substantially less combat and civilian casualties, in general it will increase kinetics (weapons effects), precision, accuracy, and decisiveness (RISTA).
Civilians will suffer the most in wars and in violent conflict times.
Urban warfare is the highest intensity warfare, with highest casualty rates both combat and civilians.
First failed attempt of drone attack with chemical weapon was in 90's in Japan, I believe this if first recorded attempt of terrorist attack using drone.
AI warfare with sci-fi flying, crawling, walking terminators will be more humane then carpet bombing population into oblivion (Soviet–Afghan War and Vietnam War), it will have substantially less combat and civilian casualties, in general it will increase kinetics (weapons effects), precision, accuracy, and decisiveness (RISTA).
You original sentence was implying that the deaths would occur to just 19-24 year olds - which clearly isn't going to be the case if the warfare happens in civilian quarters.
You created a false dichotomy - as if those are the only two outcomes and we have to choose between them. When obviously (as your follow up comment shows), there are other scenarios where numerous innocent non-combatants will die.
You created a false dichotomy - as if those are the only two outcomes and we have to choose between them. When obviously (as your follow up comment shows), there are other scenarios where numerous innocent non-combatants will die.
> it would be tremendously irresponsible to let our adversaries own this space
Can't wait for your finished script of Dr Strangelove 2.
Can't wait for your finished script of Dr Strangelove 2.
Wonder when we'll get to the MAINPART: Militarized Artificial Intelligence Non-Proliferation And Reduction Treaty.
>> it would be tremendously irresponsible to let our adversaries own this space
> Can't wait for your finished script of Dr Strangelove 2.
It's easy to mock and parody MAD, arms races, etc., but certain conditions make them necessary and rational, and those conditions can't easily be changed.
> Can't wait for your finished script of Dr Strangelove 2.
It's easy to mock and parody MAD, arms races, etc., but certain conditions make them necessary and rational, and those conditions can't easily be changed.
I have only a single downvote, so I'll leave a comment instead. This will directly lead to an AI arms race. We need to put a pin in this just like chemical weapons. Our civilization might not survive a WW1 level experiment.
If we go down this path, and we survive, earth will be the best approximation of hell in heaven.
If we go down this path, and we survive, earth will be the best approximation of hell in heaven.
We can use AI to control things but having an AI decide to attack or not without human sign off is a terrible terrible idea
Do you realize it's the same reason used to start the Manhattan project?
Do you realize that only one country nuked civilian cities?
Do you realize that only one country nuked civilian cities?
I'm reminded of that line from Shrek:
"Some of you might die, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make."
"Some of you might die, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make."
They already do, as far as I understand it Phalanx CIWS can identify and choose to target an object based entirely on radar and other internal sensors.
And didn't the Aegis Combat System do that as well?
Phalanx CIWS is included as part of the Aegis Combat System (as well as being used on almkst all US Navy ships without Aegis, too) so, if Phalanx can do it, Aegis can necessarily also do it.
Anduril (start up by the founder of Oculus) is also working on AI-defense systems: https://www.anduril.com/
Has anyone tried attaching weapons (lasers, tasers, even guns) and a somewhat smart targeting system to a drone yet?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4l0Dh6qJ3RE&t=48s
In war, weapon speed triumphs safety concerns.
And hypersonic and laser weaponry is only going to decrease that.
We've been in a delegated authority regime since the USS Vincennes / Iranian Air Flight 655.
There are already shifts towards a delegated-preemption regime in EW (see: efforts to equip EW suites with self-adaptive capability). I can't imagine we won't see the same thing with actual weapons.
Sure, put a human in the loop, if there's time. Otherwise...
In war, weapon speed triumphs safety concerns.
And hypersonic and laser weaponry is only going to decrease that.
We've been in a delegated authority regime since the USS Vincennes / Iranian Air Flight 655.
There are already shifts towards a delegated-preemption regime in EW (see: efforts to equip EW suites with self-adaptive capability). I can't imagine we won't see the same thing with actual weapons.
Sure, put a human in the loop, if there's time. Otherwise...
If anyone is curious what this automated missile defense looks like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biyUjm4KZio
It's an automated, super fast, self-aiming gatling gun.
It's an automated, super fast, self-aiming gatling gun.
I probably need to read the report to get more information, but I'm just having trouble visualizing this hypothetical future where we need a swarm of autonomous agents to identify their own targets and threats at all level without any human intervention, and where any manual control would be too limiting. There are circumstances, like CIWS or CRAM systems automatically shooting down incoming munitions, where that comes in handy. I'd also be more comfortable with putting autonomy in the hand of anti-aircraft systems (either SAMs or UAVs). In that case you can program in parameters and I can trust a machine to reliably stick to those parameters. But if we're talking about a machine gun mounted on an unmanned ground vehicle? If you really need to shave off that second or two of human reaction time, that's not a real battle, that's a showdown from a Western movie. I don't think it's too much effort to send a quick picture to a human, or have a human being specify where they can engage and for how long for area suppression.
I think it will be multiple decades before AI has progressed to the point where I'd trust it to correctly identify enemy soldiers vs non-combatants as well or better than a human being. Fortunately, I think it will be even longer before that's something we need.
I think it will be multiple decades before AI has progressed to the point where I'd trust it to correctly identify enemy soldiers vs non-combatants as well or better than a human being. Fortunately, I think it will be even longer before that's something we need.
If they're going to go down this route, I demand that they start testing humanoid variants, as well as living tissue over a metal endoskeleton.
Only if they fix it to sound like a strong Austrian-American.
Having just finished some documentation on cryogen handling, I’m ready.
As a further tangent and something that came as news to me - some cryogens can condense oxygen out of the atmosphere and if oil or grease is present there is a risk of fire. Asphyxiation, frostbite, fire.
Sounds to me like easy money.
Of course, the deaths of innocents will dissolve in the calculus of responsibility this way, as each slice tends toward the infinitesimal. The spec was wrong for those conditions, the optics company we hired sold us something defective, the training set was bad, the review wasn't thorough, we got underpowered CPUs, the targeting system on those pinhead missiles has a known flaw, on and on, until absolutely nobody is at fault. Nobody will court martial a neural net and that'll be the end of it.
Seems essentially inevitable to me. Just like AI can play better chess than humans it’ll also fly combat planes better. Dramatically so. It’s only a matter of time till A) they do get much better And B) someone can’t resist the allure
I saw this in 1983.
War games.
Big WOPR energy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_60_CAPTOR