14 ms·
Omniviolence Is Coming and the World Isn’t Ready
- tedajax 7y agoLiterally nothing in this article seems like something that will actually come to pass. It's like a bad Black Mirror fanfic.
- mrandish 7y agoAgreed and the vaguely proposed solution for their hypothesized problem sounds far worse than the problem.
- yellowapple 7y agoAnd, on that note, sounds like it would do effectively nothing to even address the problem in the first place.
- Jupe 7y agoCame to say exactly this... Not quite sure how the author went from "Technology is, in other words, enabling criminals to target anyone anywhere and, due to democratization, increasingly at scale" to "One strategy could be a superintelligent machine—essentially, an extremely powerful algorithm—that’s specifically designed to govern fairly".
- ctoth 7y ago> Of course, this is a fantastical proposal. Even the real-world use of AI in the justice system is fraught with problems. But at this point, do we have a better idea for preventing the collapse of the state system under the weight of widespread technological empowerment? I'm not sure what motivated this sort of soundbite-style quoting without digging in further, but I hope if you first read the comments without the article you realize this is supposed to pose a question, not offer a solution.
- Jupe 7y agoI'm not judging the solution, just the logic that skipped from "Omniviolence" to the absurd proposal for an AI-based government authority. The two are quite unrelated in my mind. For example, the article made no serious mention of counter-measures such as string (which can down a drone), detection (RF directional antennae), or even just "plant more trees" (as trees make drone navigation more complicated - I know from personal experience). Just broadcasting random RF/VHF/UHF noise (there are only so many channels available) at drones can wreak havoc. Quite seriously, do a web search for "can you spot the source of a drone controller", and you will find a wealth of information from RF source detection, to the GPS coordinates of the controller (so the drone can "return home") - there a TON of alternatives that any "scholar" should research before even hinting at a doom-and-gloom alternative such as AI-based government.
- Arbalest 7y agoWhile basically all the omniviolence scenarios would induce the state to trust individuals less, which is kind of the thrust of the article, climate change can still induce more frequent heatwaves and make things difficult for more people. Whether it will reach the threshold of societal collapse is a more difficult question.
- crankylinuxuser 7y agoReally? I'm just waiting for some dumbass to take a cheap chinese drone, attach a blasting cap with a shape charge laced with sodium cyanide. Anybody nicked with fragments would die. And it'd cost what, $80-$100 ? It's the endgame of asymmetric warfare.
- Gibbon1 7y agoDrone + cluster bomblet, cheep. That sort of thing scares me more than weapons of mass destruction. Because they are usable by non-nation state actors and rouge nation state actors. It's not that I'm worried anyone's going to try to take me out (like why?). It's I'm worried what sort of society we end up with when people like Larry Ellison are terrified of the above.
- michaelmrose 7y agoLarry Ellison in the grand scheme of things is a turd who while he has probably pissed enough people off hasn't pissed off anyone enough to try to flush him with extreme prejudice. I'd be more worried about people of actual importance like police chiefs, prosecutors, senators, presidents.
- Gibbon1 7y agoNot signalling anyone out, pick a name any name tho. Consider though where I live no one gives a flying fuck what I say. Because nothing I say is going to upend anyone with any real power. There are other places where I'd stick out like a nail.
- CamperBob2 7y agoIt's I'm worried what sort of society we end up with when people like Larry Ellison are terrified of the above. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter. Do you by chance have a manifesto I could peruse?
- c0nducktr 7y ago
- heyitsguay 7y agoThe scale may be exaggerated and the particulars may be wrong, but there definitely will be new problems that arise from cheap and effective remote/autonomous weapons being available. In addition to cheap IED drones which are already becoming available, what happens when you can pop a vision system + grasper arm securely around a rifle and effectively toss it up on a ridge somewhere? It's probably been technically possible for a while, but soon it'll be (relatively) cheap, and probably hard to monitor.
- kevingadd 7y agoConsumer grade drones are already being used in combat in the middle east: https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2017/01/11/isis-using-small-drones-to-drop-bombs-on-iraqis/ https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2017/01/11/... (All the better sources for these stories are paywalled, so have fun reading them)
- m463 7y agoI thought drones in warzones have already been used to target people and explode at head level. Maybe not crates of miniaturized ones with facial recognition, but precursors.
- lotu 7y agoThe scale is so different that it’s not really the same thing. It’s like comparing a mortar to an orbital bombardment with rail-guns. Yes both involve sending a projectile at a target at high speed but they aren’t remotely similar.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- subroutine 7y agoI would like to see a mini quad copter take the recoil of a 1 g "shaped charge" (aka bullet). EDIT: ok, i found a clip of (a fairly big) drone firing a gun and it looks... not stable: https://youtu.be/FI--wFfipvA https://youtu.be/FI--wFfipvA still, pretty worrisome.
- sushisource 7y agoIf you actually watch the original video the drones aren't intended to survive.
- delinka 7y agoOK, drones are cheap. How about that projectile firing apparatus?
- nyolfen 7y agoshaped charges are made of a metal cylinder with explosives inside and a concave copper cone on one end. insurgents can and do manufacture them. the explosives and detonation rigging are the only part that has a meaningful cost, and if you're talking about one gram of explosive that isn't much.
- GhettoMaestro 7y agoI don't think you technically need to absorb the recoil. Check out the EFP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_formed_penetrator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_formed_penetrator EFPs were what turned out Humvees to swiss-cheese in Iraq before we switched over the MRAPs.
- subroutine 7y agoAh this is what I wanted to know. If you ignite a shaped projectile with nothing to push on but air, will it go "An EFP 20 cm (8 inches) in diameter threw a 3 kg (7 lbs) copper slug at Mach 6, or 2,000 meters per second. (A .50-caliber bullet, among the most devastating projectiles on the battlefield, weighs less than two ounces and has a muzzle velocity of 900 meters per second.) — Rick Atkinson, The Washington Post"
- trentnix 7y agoBostrom is well-aware of the downsides—corrupt actors in a state could exploit this surveillance for totalitarian ends, or hackers could blackmail unsuspecting victims. Yet the fact is that it may still be a better option than suffering one global catastrophe after another. Aspiring fascists are always trying to save us from ourselves.
- whatshisface 7y agoIf we don't police everyone every second of the day, how will we stop them from joining fascist organizations?
- DSingularity 7y agoI don't like this "panopticon" but I don't think suggesting it as a solution makes the author an "aspiring" fascist.
- trentnix 7y agoOn the contrary, that's exactly what it makes him.
- darkerside 7y agoWhat exactly do you think fascist means
- trentnix 7y agoFascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. - from Wikipedia. Pretty sure his proposal nails the dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society parts. After all, that's the whole point of all-encompassing surveillance.
- 7y ago
- defen 7y ago> In this scenario, the K/K ratio could be perhaps 3/1,000,000, assuming a 10-percent accuracy and only a single one-gram shaped charge per drone. So you "only" need 10 million drones and 10 million grams of plastic explosive? An attack of that magnitude probably requires the resources of a nation-state, so I doubt it will happen. Targeted assassinations seem more plausible.
- kevingadd 7y agoYeah, the 3/1000000 case is kind of a pointless extrapolation. 3/1000 is way more threatening if those 1000 are local political/business leaders - you could cripple an entire city (or with careful timing, an entire state).
- XorNot 7y agoI mean if you barred the doors to a theater and tossed a few gallons of bleach and vinegar in you could also just gas hundreds of people, but it doesn't happen. We worry a lot about technology because the attacks sound novel, but not about the conventional ones which still (mostly) don't happen because the reality is that the actual logistical challenges of implementing them without security services noticing still hasn't fundamentally changed all that much.
- justAnotherNET 7y agoWhile I have no intention of ever doing so, imagine a “DC sniper” situation but with lethal drones. A nondescript vehicle driving around releasing a single killer drone that finds the first person in range and detonates a hand grenade sized charge right by their head. Even worse, imagine they deploy it while driving at speed. It climbs fast to get out of sight, loiters, and attacks only when the person deploying it is long gone.
- Felz 7y agoI think the real limiter is people willing and stable enough to murder indiscriminately at scale in novel ways. Mowing down crowds of people with a truck is bizarrely recent, and the peak of mass murder is still one guy sniping at a concert from a nearby hotel. Everyone was relatively surprised that passenger planes could be used as destructive weapons. The really effective means of mass murder I think would be subtle, though, and mass murderers don't seem to do subtle. E.g. leaving some radioactive material in an innocuous public place, worsening visibility at crash prone intersections, subtle and slow poisons mixed into food and drink…
- yellowapple 7y agoA more reasonable solution to a bunch of drones terrorizing humanity (at least more reasonable than "hey let's make those drones' lives easier by setting up a giant artificially-intelligent surveillance monstrosity! What could possibly go wrong?") would be to stock up on shotguns, birdshot, butterfly nets, and crowbars.
- kevingadd 7y agoHope you've got a bunch of nets and a bunch of ammo cause drones are pretty cheap and there's nothing stopping someone from sending 5 or 10 your way.
- yellowapple 7y agoAs cheap as drones may be, a single drone costs more than a box of cartridges: https://www.cabelas.com/product/shooting/ammunition/shotgun-ammunition/pc/104792580/c/104691780/sc/104567580/winchester-xpert-game-target-shotshells-box/2883463.uts?slotId=2 https://www.cabelas.com/product/shooting/ammunition/shotgun-...
- KoenDG 7y agoWhen it comes to defending one's citizens, the attitude of "that'll probably never happen, it'll be fine" doesn't exactly sound like a solid foundation. And I doubt any government around the world, worth its salt, has that attitude. True, it all sounds like scaremongering, but the question is: what's stopping people from actually doing this? Crime and violence already exist. And if we look at history, it is clear that it has changed with the times. What logical sense is there in thinking they will not follow the changes in technology today? The events described are but a possibility. Yet, I do feel we should not dismiss it, simply because we don't like it.
- chucksmash 7y agoThe article drums up a hypothetical scenario ("a semi-trailer full of autonomous drones carrying small shaped charges could kill a million New Yorkers, just for instance!") and then suggests we could counteract the Omniviolence that The World Is Not Ready for by submitting to a Panopticon society or making an AI our Philosopher King. This is not serious minded analysis, but it's not fun either. It's just bad clickbait. No system can stop every dedicated attacker to begin with. Technology gives people leverage in all their activities, including doing violence to one another. Writing an article in Nautilus that amounts to idle musing about a comic book villain's murderbot scheme and then trying to burnish it as Very Serious at the end with name dropping and the author's academic credentials is so lame.
- kryogen1c 7y agoAbstract of a different work by the same author: >the only plausible escape from this conundrum, at least from our present vantage point, is the creation of a “supersingleton” run by a friendly superintelligence, founded upon a “post-singularity social contract.” I didnt read the paper, but that abstract sounds firmly rooted in sci-fi with a toe in nonfiction, instead of the other way around as im sure the author believes. K/K has been very low for at least 50 years and probably longer. The idea that a terrorist would smuggle millions of drones to cause... Car crashes... Is the stuff of a high school writing class. i am 100% positive there are cheaper and more effective tools available to cause more serious damage that currently actually exist (and have for decades), and we dont have the society the author claims.
- CryptoPunk 7y agoThe organizing of any neural network training program to create AI that can identify targets would also be a very laborious process.
- deft 7y agoIs this really just another advertisement for Bostrom's ridiculous surveillance state saviour idea?
- Causality1 7y agoEvery one of these "individual actor catastrophes" has just assloads of barriers to it. Take the "swarm of exploding drones" or "slaughterbots" if you're a douchebag. We do not have the technology for a swarm of a dozen one-inch drones to avoid crashing into each other, let alone carry out the intensely complicated task of tracking down human beings. Also, drones that size have a flight time of about five minutes. Also you would need to manufacture and attach millions of shaped charges, which, unless you're a state actor, is likely to kill the person doing it considering the poor life expectancy of people trying to make only handfuls of IEDs. Let's take something that's entirely possible using current technology. A small group of motivated individuals could purchase thousands of toasters and turn them into bombs and mail them all to politicians or schools or _____ and set them to all explode at the same time. But that doesn't happen. A group could use agar and antibiotics to breed up a bunch of highly-resistant MRSA and use syringes to infect half the grocery section at dozens of stores on the same day and in doing so kill tens of thousands of people. But that won't happen either. Just because you can imagine something and not think of a reason it's impossible doesn't mean it's a realistic threat.
- michaelmrose 7y agoThe described scenario involves billions of dollars which in most cases represents the output of thousands or 10s of thousands. The attack described is somewhat novel but the fact that the work of thousands can oppose the work of millions isn't. This makes the nation state more relevant not less. The state can best fund countermeasures and preemptive investigations. They can work with nations who will work to police themselves so they don't have to deal with the backlash involved in locals killing a million people far from home and if needed punish nation states who fail in such policing.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago> One strategy could be a superintelligent machine—essentially, an extremely powerful algorithm—that’s specifically designed to govern fairly. I volunteer to write that fair governing powerful algorithm. You can trust me to make it fair and not make it favor my biases and interests.
- bryanrasmussen 7y agoI think we need to use machine learning, feeding it a corpus of all fair government decisions across a selection of successful governments over the last 1000 years.
- CompanionCuuube 7y agoI would be fine with being able to select which "fair decisions" to train them on.
- aaron695 7y agoAbsolutely everything about this has no basis in science or logic. A 3 million drone attack which would cost $40+ million fails because of windows, and they run out of power after 5 minutes, who puts all of them together with explosives, a Chinese factory? And one gram of explosives would only maybe blind you if lucky. I can buy 10,000 small bombs and drop them on a stadium from a plane using tech from the past 100 years, but no one has done it yet......
- cwkoss 7y agoThe silver lining of deepfakes is that now everyone has plausible deniability for any 'leaked nudes': anyone with a gaming computer and a lot of free time can put anyone else's head onto a pornographic actor's body. Within a decade, 'nudes being leaked' will no longer be controversial or damaging because they'll cost a couple hundred dollars or less to manufacture and won't have credibility. I'd argue that one of the best things a 'chaotic good' actor could do today to fight revenge porn is to manufacture a huge quantity of deepfake porn of random targets and release it, so speeding along this process.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 7y agoWe already have photoshop and this isn't the case.
- nyolfen 7y agoyou should probably read past the first paragraph
- starpilot 7y agoBut I am. I was born ready, and I have been waiting. Preparing. Training.
- scottlocklin 7y ago"Will emerging technologies make the state system obsolete? It’s hard to see why not." Yeah, it's hard to see why not if your view of technology is something like that of medieval demonology, which appears to be the thesis of this article. Meanwhile, in reality land, you can make explosives and poison gas out of stuff in your kitchen, automobiles put a ridiculous amount of kinetic energy in the hands of individuals, this has been true for 100 years, and somehow "the state system" has done just fine; strengthened even in that period of time. Also Bostrom is a nincompoop and no article that mentions him deserves to be taken seriously.
- bilbo0s 7y ago>automobiles put a ridiculous amount of kinetic energy in the hands of individuals, this has been true for 100 years, and somehow "the state system" has done just fine; strengthened even in that period of time. Yep. States figured out how to turn automobiles into tanks, essentially strengthening their power. Yet the article implicitly posits that somehow the same won't happen with microprocessors and nanomachines? The entire article seems a bit fanciful. States aren't going anywhere.
- rlayton2 7y agoYeah, this is a common fallacy, I'm sure there would be a name for it. Basically "my strategy will work, assuming my opponent doesn't act at all", and ignores the fact the opponent is a capable, well resourced entity. Many bitcoin proponents have the same fallacy - i.e. "this is better than banks, therefore banks are obsolete", ignoring the fact that banks will work with new technology as it suits them.
- grawprog 7y ago>States figured out how to turn automobiles into tanks So did this disgruntled citizen: https://youtu.be/PZbG9i1oGPA https://youtu.be/PZbG9i1oGPA
- bilbo0s 7y agoAnd which tank is superior? The "killdoser", designed and built by the non-state actor inside the US nation state? Or the M1 Abrams, designed and built by the US nation state itself? Even if you build yourself a "killdozer", you are powerless against the US state. Because the tanks that the US nation state built substantially increased the strength and power of that nation state years ago.
- _iyig 7y agoIt’s far easier to build a zip gun than a killer drone, yet we don’t see too many of the former in countries with strong gun regulation. Why should we believe that hunter-killer drones carrying explosives will be any more of a large-scale problem?
- jcims 7y agoI’m way more worried about home gamers buying gene editing kits and tinkering with pathogens. Can you tag a gene with your twitter handle?
- danShumway 7y agoIt is at least somewhat novel to see a technological alarmist jump entirely over the "encryption enables child porn" argument all the way to "robot drones are going to murder your family in broad daylight." Go big or go home, I guess.
- glangdale 7y agoAmusing to picture our "3" terrorists carefully assembling 10m drones, each with a 1g shaped charge on it - or does the author think this is something that you can just order from some factory in China, along with the 10 tons of plastic explosive. It seems to be that anyone sophisticated enough to put 10 tons of plastic explosive in any form wherever they feel like is already quite capable of causing massive casualties. Somehow, to make this even remotely plausible, we need to intersect a lot of unlikely combinations (a bunch of really bad guys who are hugely resourced, very technical and intelligent, completely uninfiltrated, fighting for some goal that isn't going to be radically harmed by the optics of killing thousands of soft targets).
- winfred 7y agoSounds like a James Bond plot to me.
- glangdale 7y agoThe more I think about this, the funnier it gets. How long would it take to unpack a drone, put a power source in it, and install a 1g shaped charge on a drone and pack it away? 30 seconds? It seems like something you wouldn't exactly want to rush. So with 3 terrorists, assuming they worked 16 hour days, they'd have their devices ready in 4.75 years, assuming they didn't take any holidays.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- mikeg8 7y agoThe premise of this article: Because a super-villain like attack “could” occur, we need to solve a technology threat, with more technology... that is more likely to be hacked and misused (eventually). Don’t agree. If the “state” can’t defend me from fanastical threats, it serves no purpose and we should abolish it? Nope, don’t agree again. I accept that my state can’t guarantee ultimate protections from a Vin Diesel-like movie threat situation. However, my state provides other benefits like: funding for education, business regulations and tax credits, lending regulation, infrastructure build/repair, funding construction projects (my industry), wildlife protection, park systems, etc. Joke of an article.
- bob1029 7y agoThis is the basic feeling I left with as well. In terms of the hypothetical threat presented here (millions of autonomous kill drones), there are actually solid defensive measures that can be taken, even if they may not be absolute (aka stopping evil superman). Some are direct - I.e. microwave/laser/kinetic countermeasures which a nation state could quite easily deploy, whereas others (the more important ones IMO) are indirect - I.e. Monitoring supply chains and persons of interest., following up on anonymous tips (aka clerk at hardware store concerned with customer purchase, or the guy complaining about the secret drone factory noise next door). The value of the nation state, even confined to this hypothetical scenario, is still there for me. There is far more to this than the one perspective of "techno-horror vs hapless government" presented in the article.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- noonespecial 7y ago“A very, very small quadcopter, one inch in diameter can carry a one-or two-gram shaped charge,” he says. “You can order them from a drone manufacturer in China. You can program the code... Or you could start a meme about sneaking up on people and punching them in the head to try to knock them out, styling it as some sort of game. Guess which one I'm more worried about.
- bilbo0s 7y agoWow. The one you're worried about is even more hare-brained than the article's worry. At this point people really are out here creating reasons to be fearful. Don't walk the street, you'll be punched. Don't go to walmart/target, you'll be gunned down by the terrorists. Take off your shoes before you get on this plane, so we can search for the bomb you put in them. And of course this article now adds, don't go outside, the nano swarm will annihilate you. You guys should really go for a walk and smell some flowers or something.
- jacobsenscott 7y agoThis is a huge step backward from gray goo alarm-ism. Disappointing.
- anigbrowl 7y agoNanotechnology at least had the possibility of being the singularity if only you would learn to relax and enjoy it. Bostrom seems bent on realizing the Inferno and adding a 10th circle of people saying 'it's your fault from not stopping me.'
- CryptoPunk 7y agoAs the cost of offensive technology decreases, so does the cost of defensive technology. The 10 million drones could be countered by a larger number or AI-powered defensive drones. The real threat of technology comes from the power it gives to governments. Bad actors can do more damage through the political process than any other.
- jeromebaek 7y ago> Nick Bostrom argues that the only way to defend against a global catastrophe is to employ a universal and invasive surveillance system, what he calls a “High-tech Panopticon.” I suspected as much since the simulation argument but looks like Bostrom has really lost his marbles.
- slips 7y agoThis is a lot of words to communicate a fairly shallow fantasy.
- trileansoftware 7y agoThe solution to potential threats is to surrender ourselves to actual totalitarianism. What a novel idea.
- njharman 7y agoThis is why I wish HN had downvotes. This article/author deserves no attention/spread. It is a waste of our time.
- abbadadda 7y agoWTF am I reading?
- reilly3000 7y agoDespite the article's weaknesses, I think its spot on to assert that political nation-states may not survive technology. I think we are living in nationalism's dying breath.