5 ms·

With the recent uproar inside Google against Maven, it is obvious that Pentagon is going to have difficult time. Google helps Pentagon analyze military drone f

• plandis 8y ago
  Are you an American?
• killjoywashere 8y ago
  I'm in the military and work on an AI project with a Silicon Valley company and I know the lead AI researcher who helped build Maven. The US military is going to kill people by sending kinetic energy down range in pursuit of the international agenda the US population votes for. Maven was trying to increase the accuracy of the decision and targetting processes. Opting out of that is opting for delivering more kinetic energy to innocent bystanders, which is a calculus that people have historically used to promote support for their even more reprehensible regimes. Muslim extremists bank on civilian casualties to promote Sharia legal regimes. Russia banks on US-caused casualties in Syria to support the extension of their kleptocracy's sphere of influence among neighboring states. China points to the Middle East as a grab-bag of reasons that the countries of the Far East should seek shelter under their Communist dictatorship. I'm not sure I disagree with your assessment that the world would be better off if Silicon Valley abstained from the arms race, except for the part where that amounts to an endorsement of even worse regimes. Could the US and its allies do better? Absolutely. But I would urge you to take a bit more realpolitik view of the world and occassionally reassess your position on this matter.
  • aurelwu 8y ago
    "kinetic energy" is such a euphemism for killing people. I think a lot of people just have a problem with the military deciding who is innocent and who isn't and killing people of other countries without a declaration of war & without a trial.
    • star-techate 8y ago
      It's really not, as people by themselves don't pose much of a military threat. What you really want to do is break all the stuff that lets those people actually threaten you. Granted, much of that stuff is arranged in the form of compounds that contain people, or is stored on such compounds. There are a few steps to "deciding who is innocent", but the big steps are Step 1: the President decides that the military can start making spot decisions like "that guy just shot me" within a specific set of circumstances. Step 2: "that guy just shot me! I'm shooting back!" Better military technology improves step #2. It also improves subtler cases like "can I shoot this guy" / "does he have a weapon?" / "yes he totally does [false]" / "ok shoot him" -- by allowing the supervisor in this case to confirm what he's being told, before he gives the go-ahead. But step #1 is the biggie. As soon as the President says that the military can go to a place and kill people, it gets very dangerous for the people there. Apart from turning the entire planet into a panopticon, I don't think technology can change this much.
    • killjoywashere 8y ago
      > "kinetic energy" is such a euphemism for killing people. corrected, thank you. I agree with you more than you think. Please vote.
    • thedoctor79 8y ago
      Let's imagine a future where fully autonomous weapons exist. Advanced AI is driving them, and technological advances have enabled the weapons to have better sight (wide spectrum sensors), better range and faster reaction time than humans. They can go where humans can't and endure in environments where humans can't live even for a couple of minutes. Perhaps initially the weapons are simple, kind of like the "sword" from Second Variety (P. K. Dick), using radio emitters to identify friend from foe. They would also need a power supply, and because you can't put an advanced brain of huge computing power on a small platform (laws of physics still apply), the "brain" would be located somewhere shielded, deep underground, perhaps near a volcano to use the thermal energy, but also near water, because of cooling requirements. The brain would use a large capacity datalink to communicate with the weapons. Humans are still in the loop, of course, because the adversary is unfortunately quite adaptable and you need programmers to change the software as battle requirements demand. However, humans have this pesky thing called conscience, and sooner or later, if you make them fight, they will refuse to pull the trigger. So they need to be removed as far as possible from the decision to kill, left to the AI. So a team (quite large in fact) of programmers are working on small, disparate features (image recogniton, data communication, weapons delivery) but they never quite see the big picture themselves. Since what they do is quite important, they are well paid and enjoy a nice lifestyle. There are of course downsides. Refusing to do the work anymore or even talking about it could bring repercussions. So the best strategy is to keep quiet and mind your own business paycheck to paycheck. Meanwhile, old school soldiers become obsolete and the AI does all the messy work. Sounds like fiction? Perhaps it is.