8 ms·

The U.S. military, algorithmic warfare, and big tech

remarkEon 7y ago
>“We are going to be shocked by the speed, the chaos, the bloodiness, and the friction of a future fight in which this will be playing out, maybe in microseconds at times. How do we envision that fight happening? It has to be algorithm against algorithm,” Shanahan said during a conversation with former Google CEO Eric Schmidt and Google VP of global affairs Kent Walker. So, A Taste of Armageddon[1]? [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Taste_of_Armageddon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Taste_of_Armageddon
bransonf 7y ago
Human motivations truly are something strange. We discovered and innovated heavily on amazing pieces of technology (Computers, Web, Phones, Efficient Algorithms). And seemingly, the two foremost use cases have become to captivate people’s attention to sell them ads, and to threaten the lives of people we disagree with ideologically. (War, mass surveillance) Just look at what China has done to the Uighurs. I often worry about the direction we’re heading. While it is undeniable that fewer people are dying due to war, maybe we’re just moving the agony elsewhere. For every startup that begins with the ambition to make money, there lack in startups that actually aim to address a problem. Yet, somehow we manage to convince ourselves that food delivery, ride sharing, or scooters are somehow going to fix our most primal issues.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  >And seemingly, the two foremost use cases have become to captivate people’s attention to sell them ads, and to threaten the lives of people we disagree with ideologically. In my highly unscientific observation those use cases are minuscule in comparison to entertainment (Netflix/Hulu/YouTube shows, funny cat videos, arguing with idiots on Reddit, reading the news, reading blogs, pornography, reading HN, etc, etc).
  - Aperocky 7y ago
    And in that it serve us well. Upon reflection, it is clear that most of our energy are spent on entertainment and it’s whats making our lives and the economy more fulfilling.
  - bransonf 7y ago
    I totally agree. My original comment was a bit narrow, but by captivate attention I meant platforms of consumption. But in many of those platforms, I’m willing to bet that an equal or proportionally larger amount of development is in advertising. YouTube for example: Making a large scale video platform is a challenge, but then using that to generate revenue is probably the bigger challenge.
- moltensodium 7y ago
  I have never met a startup founder that wanted to address a problem or improve the world. Instead they all want to make sure that the Series A investors are happy. Nothing else really matters besides doing whatever the investors think will make number go up. One time I almost got involved with a person who truly wanted to improve the world, but didn't get the job. Outside of that one person I almost met 15 years ago, literally every founder in tech I've interacted with is just trying to run the ponzi scheme and get to that exit event, consequences be damned, employees be damned, profit be damned. Maybe there are some good people in tech, but I still haven't met them after a whole career in this industry. Just a lot of people who make number go up like they're told to. *edit I think this comment will be very poorly received and downvoted to -100000 karma, but honestly typing it out has made me realize I just fucking hate this industry with every fiber of my being. Every new platform and channel and tool gets completely subverted by ever more intrusive and personalized advertising, and the total data surveillance ecosystem of the big tech giants ensures that they will be able to kill or consume any truly good business idea before it gets off the ground. I think I'm done. Fuck tech. Fuck computers. What a waste of a career.
  - AndrewKemendo 7y ago
    An interesting irony here is that almost every founder I know who started a company that failed outright or went bankrupt were primarily ideologically motivated. Whereas the successful founders were the ones who chased the bottom line, improve the world is a benefit. I fall into the first camp, though I got lucky with an acquisition. However it tainted me on startups and business in general actually having the ability to be ideological. At the end of the day people need to get paid, otherwise it's a volunteer organization, and volunteer organizations don't scale.
  - dekhn 7y ago
    Plenty of the startup founders I've worked with want to address a problem and improve the world. They were also working to keep investors happy because otherwise they would not have the opportunity.
  - balt_s 7y ago
    Hang in there, man.
- s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
  Most of this technology was developed because of war. We can thank the Cold War and WWII for most of it. We see the largest strides in innovation when we're pitted against each other and the stakes are high and clear.
- caseysoftware 7y ago
  It's been a while now but while I (briefly) worked on my Masters, we analyzed technology development and what drove it. Surprisingly (at the time), war and sex tend to drive the vast majority of it. GPS, microwaves, the internet, and many medical treatments had roots in national defense. VHS over Betamax and high speed internet adoption came from porn. We identified hundreds of big and little things in many industries.
  - bransonf 7y ago
    Did your lab ever publish anything on the subject? If so, I’d love to read it.
  - carapace 7y ago
    I thought it was more or less axiomatic that sex and death are the two main drivers of all human culture. (Because evolution.)
- Braggadocious 7y ago
  It's society deciding who breeds and who doesn't. It's a belief that's existed since Francis Galton that we can quantify the traits of humans, and that, like Gregor Mendel controlled the color of flowers, we can quantify and control those human traits.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
  > We discovered and innovated heavily on amazing pieces of technology (Computers, Web, Phones, Efficient Algorithms). A lot of the research efforts that discovered these things were funded by governments for the purpose of conducting war more effectively and efficiently. The internet was created to maintain command and control in the advent of a nuclear war. A lot of operations research was about improving factory production of war materiel. The desire to simulate nuclear explosions drove a lot of super computing research (look at all the Department of Energy contracts for supercomputers). Throughout human history, the desire to efficiently kill other humans without being killed yourself has driven a lot of technology development, and this is unlikely to change in the future.
- bumblebee4 7y ago
  How can you escape survival of the fittest? With 8G people, it's a numbers game. Even if one or the other is driven by interesting motivations, is that a strategic advantage the competition for the fittest business processes?
- est 7y ago
  > We discovered and innovated heavily on amazing pieces of technology (Computers, Web, Phones, Efficient Algorithms) These technologies are funded by defence industries in the first place. https://steveblank.com/secret-history/ https://steveblank.com/secret-history/
naringas 7y ago
>“We are going to be shocked by the speed, the chaos, the bloodiness, and the friction of a future fight in which this will be playing out, I think this article's focus is way off It's more plausible that algorithmic warfare is going to make us unsure as to what is even happening. We are going to be lost, drowned, in conflicting plausible information to the point we won't even know what is going in nor who to believe
- Damorian 7y ago
  Going to be? We're already there.
- joyjoyjoy 7y ago
  Meanwhile, in the late-twentieth-century phase of the arms race, the role of unpredictable chance increased. When hours (or days) and miles (or hundreds of miles) separate defeat from victory, and therefore an error of command can be remedied by throwing in reserves, or retreating, or counterattacking, then there is room to reduce the element of chance. But when micromillimeters and nanoseconds determine the outcome, then chance enters like a god of war, deciding victory or defeat; it is magnified and lifted out of the microscopic scale of atomic physics. The fastest, best weapons system comes up against the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which nothing can overcome, because that principle is a basic property of matter in the Universe. It need not be a computer breakdown in satellite reconnaissance or in missiles whose warheads parry defenses with laser beams; if a series of electronic defensive impulses is even a billionth of a second slow in meeting a similar series of offensive impulses, that is enough for a toss of the dice to decide the outcome of the Final Encounter. Unaware of this state of affairs, the major antagonists of the planet devised two opposite strategies. One can call them the "scalpel" and the "hammer." The constant escalation of pay-load megatonnage was the hammer; the improvement of detection and swift destruction in flight was the scalpel. They also reckoned on the deterrent of the "dead man's revenge": the enemy would realize that even in winning he would perish, since a totally obliterated country would still respond -- automatically and posthumously -- with a strike that would make defeat universal. Such was the direction the arms race was taking, and such was its destination, which no one wanted but no one knew how to avoid. How does the engineer minimize error in a very large, very complex system? He does trial runs to test it; he looks for weak spots, weak links. But there was no way of testing a system designed to wage global nuclear war, a system made up of surface, submarine, air-launched, and satellite missiles, antimissiles, and multiple centers of command and communications, ready to loose gigantic destructive forces in wave on wave of reciprocal atomic strikes. No maneuvers, no computer simulation, could re-create the actual conditions of such a battle. Increasing speed of operation marked each new weapons system, particularly the decision-making function (to strike or not to strike, where, how, with what force held in reserve, at what risk, etc.), and this increasing speed also brought the incalculable factor of chance into play. Lightning-fast systems made lightning-fast mistakes. When a fraction of a second determined the safety or destruction of a region, a great metropolis, an industrial complex, or a large fleet, it was impossible to achieve military certainty. One could even say that victory had ceased to be distinguishable from defeat. In a word, the arms race was heading toward a Pyrrhic situation.
carapace 7y ago
What about the idea that technology can bring about a post-historical techno-utopia where war would be obsolete? I mean, technology is a general amplifier, we should choose what to amplify.
ganzuul 7y ago
This will also push the front-line of war back in time, because democracy is vulnerable to psy-ops. For example, there is a lot of hatred brewing against the Chinese government caused by unverifiable claims of concentration camps. There doesn't need to be a state actor behind it. There doesn't even need to be a conspiracy. Individual people are willing to cause plausibly deniable harm for even imaginary profit. They can exploit pagerank-type algorithms based on intuition alone. Pagerank algos aren't designed for war but it is difficult to claim they didn't have a contribution in the current round of unrest in the Middle East. The exploitation of psychology for mass-marketing has been going on since shortly after WWII. Currently market forces which are also algorithmic in nature are pushing to make mobile devices ever more addictive and it would be surprising if using AI to accelerate this process is a new idea. With 2 billion users and no ethics Facebook has become a kind of shadow government, with the power to have non-users like me frozen-out by omission by my own family. It is crazy not to be terrified of what they have done.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- arcticfox 7y ago
  > For example, there is a lot of hatred brewing against the Chinese government caused by unverifiable claims of concentration camps. "unverifiable claims" - what? Even the Chinese government admits they exist/existed [0]. Overall I think your point that it's overwhelmingly easy to confuse the truth these days is exactly right, but you're the subject in your example instead of the people you point the finger at. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/30/world/asia/china-xinjiang.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/30/world/asia/china-xinjiang...
  - ganzuul 7y ago
    Concentration camps, not internment camps. Different claims. There are verifiable claims and then there are claims which are not verified. People look terrible when sick and dying and most people overlook that the being sick and dying is happening while receiving medical care in a hospital setting. The images from the Nazi concentration camps is something completely different. The same thing happened after WWII where some people tacked on unverifiable claims to the long list of Nazi atrocities. A well-known debunked claim although not of atrocities is by someone claiming he was nasally administering cocaine to Hitler. Claims like these require investigation and detract from attention given to real leads, but that takes work and people instead form mobs and repeat the most relatable claims. - I don't see why I need to spell out how to decouple my personal experience from the narrative I presented. Seems trivial to generalize.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
One of the big areas where AI will have a huge impact in warfare is logistics. When fighting in hostile territory (which pretty much all US wars have been since the Civil War), one of the most vulnerable parts is the supply train. Having to devote humans to drive the supplies and guard the supplies is expensive and risk prone. Instead, I imagine that supplies will be brought to the front lines via self-driving vehicles watched over by armed drones that are programmed to destroy anything that tries to interfere with the supply convoy. Just doing that one thing will have huge implications for the way wars are fought the the costs associated with the wars.
- KineticLensman 7y ago
  > Instead, I imagine that supplies will be brought to the front lines via self-driving vehicles watched over by armed drones that are programmed to destroy anything that tries to interfere with the supply convoy. You only need to wreck the lead vehicle in a convoy to stop those behind making any progress. A high-tech adversary could do this by a deep precision strike, and a low-tech enemy could simply emplace some mines or IEDs (remotely triggered).
gumby 7y ago
War, as in pitched battles on a field, has been going away for a long time. Perpetual war, unfortunately, is back. If you believe Clauzewitz's dictum that "war is diplomacy by any other means" then than disinformation, continual, slow, background degradation of the infrastructure of perceived enemies and the like will become the standard mode of large nation states, with actual shooting being the guerrilla/terrorist activity of those who can't afford the electronic ops. Something that also has been the nature of the world since forever (David/Goliath, US revolution, WWII partisans, Al Qaida....any so many in between). And BTW once you have this capability wouldn't you use it internally to "ensure domestic tranquility"? Once again The Sheep Look Up and Stand on Zanzibar are highly predictive.
- emilfihlman 7y ago
  War is a special case of competition, ie competition through violence, violent competition of nations or large body actors. But calling perpetual competition war because is questionable. We have always been influencing each other. It's not war.
  - gumby 7y ago
    I specifically don't mean perpetual "competition" so thanks for flagging that I was not clear. I consider competition to be not just commercial competition, colonial (ugh) competition, spying and the like. Spying in fact can avert war (well understood in game theory, hence the overflight treaties). But when spend time specifically probing and actually attacking, say, your perceived opponents' infrastructure (e.g. "cyberattack" of another country's electronic grid) I consider that warfare. Student was unambiguously an act of war, though Iran was too weak to respond (also: clever!). In particular Iran posed no threat to the US, but attacking its nuclear capabilities served US geopolitical interests (Iran did and does threaten US allies). If you destroy or degrade someone's capabilities remotely instead of sending a high explosive, do you not consider that perpetual war? Developing such capabilities is not, inherently, war, nor is probing for weaknesses. But if the US considers Russia an adversary (a small economy, large land and population next to various allies) I can see how someone could consider it reasonable to make it harder for its government to function. I disagree, and do consider it warfare.
freeflight 7y ago
It's kind of weird how the US DoD complains about lack of computation power and has to ask the private sector for help, while the NSA [0] apparently has no problem running their own AI program. Imho way more interesting and relevant than those somewhat far-flung future concepts about fully autonomous warfare. [0] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/02/the-nsas-skynet-program-may-be-killing-thousands-of-innocent-people/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/02/the-n...

>“We are going to be shocked by the speed, the chaos, the bloodiness, and the friction of a future fight in which this will be playing out, maybe in microseconds at times. How do we envision that fight happening? It has to be algorithm against algorithm,” Shanahan said during a conversation with former Google CEO Eric Schmidt and Google VP of global affairs Kent Walker. So, A Taste of Armageddon[1]? [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Taste_of_Armageddon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Taste_of_Armageddon

bransonf 7y ago

Human motivations truly are something strange. We discovered and innovated heavily on amazing pieces of technology (Computers, Web, Phones, Efficient Algorithms). And seemingly, the two foremost use cases have become to captivate people’s attention to sell them ads, and to threaten the lives of people we disagree with ideologically. (War, mass surveillance) Just look at what China has done to the Uighurs. I often worry about the direction we’re heading. While it is undeniable that fewer people are dying due to war, maybe we’re just moving the agony elsewhere. For every startup that begins with the ambition to make money, there lack in startups that actually aim to address a problem. Yet, somehow we manage to convince ourselves that food delivery, ride sharing, or scooters are somehow going to fix our most primal issues.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
>And seemingly, the two foremost use cases have become to captivate people’s attention to sell them ads, and to threaten the lives of people we disagree with ideologically. In my highly unscientific observation those use cases are minuscule in comparison to entertainment (Netflix/Hulu/YouTube shows, funny cat videos, arguing with idiots on Reddit, reading the news, reading blogs, pornography, reading HN, etc, etc).
- Aperocky 7y ago
  And in that it serve us well. Upon reflection, it is clear that most of our energy are spent on entertainment and it’s whats making our lives and the economy more fulfilling.
- bransonf 7y ago
  I totally agree. My original comment was a bit narrow, but by captivate attention I meant platforms of consumption. But in many of those platforms, I’m willing to bet that an equal or proportionally larger amount of development is in advertising. YouTube for example: Making a large scale video platform is a challenge, but then using that to generate revenue is probably the bigger challenge.
moltensodium 7y ago
I have never met a startup founder that wanted to address a problem or improve the world. Instead they all want to make sure that the Series A investors are happy. Nothing else really matters besides doing whatever the investors think will make number go up. One time I almost got involved with a person who truly wanted to improve the world, but didn't get the job. Outside of that one person I almost met 15 years ago, literally every founder in tech I've interacted with is just trying to run the ponzi scheme and get to that exit event, consequences be damned, employees be damned, profit be damned. Maybe there are some good people in tech, but I still haven't met them after a whole career in this industry. Just a lot of people who make number go up like they're told to. *edit I think this comment will be very poorly received and downvoted to -100000 karma, but honestly typing it out has made me realize I just fucking hate this industry with every fiber of my being. Every new platform and channel and tool gets completely subverted by ever more intrusive and personalized advertising, and the total data surveillance ecosystem of the big tech giants ensures that they will be able to kill or consume any truly good business idea before it gets off the ground. I think I'm done. Fuck tech. Fuck computers. What a waste of a career.
- AndrewKemendo 7y ago
  An interesting irony here is that almost every founder I know who started a company that failed outright or went bankrupt were primarily ideologically motivated. Whereas the successful founders were the ones who chased the bottom line, improve the world is a benefit. I fall into the first camp, though I got lucky with an acquisition. However it tainted me on startups and business in general actually having the ability to be ideological. At the end of the day people need to get paid, otherwise it's a volunteer organization, and volunteer organizations don't scale.
- dekhn 7y ago
  Plenty of the startup founders I've worked with want to address a problem and improve the world. They were also working to keep investors happy because otherwise they would not have the opportunity.
- balt_s 7y ago
  Hang in there, man.
s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
Most of this technology was developed because of war. We can thank the Cold War and WWII for most of it. We see the largest strides in innovation when we're pitted against each other and the stakes are high and clear.
caseysoftware 7y ago
It's been a while now but while I (briefly) worked on my Masters, we analyzed technology development and what drove it. Surprisingly (at the time), war and sex tend to drive the vast majority of it. GPS, microwaves, the internet, and many medical treatments had roots in national defense. VHS over Betamax and high speed internet adoption came from porn. We identified hundreds of big and little things in many industries.
- bransonf 7y ago
  Did your lab ever publish anything on the subject? If so, I’d love to read it.
- carapace 7y ago
  I thought it was more or less axiomatic that sex and death are the two main drivers of all human culture. (Because evolution.)
Braggadocious 7y ago
It's society deciding who breeds and who doesn't. It's a belief that's existed since Francis Galton that we can quantify the traits of humans, and that, like Gregor Mendel controlled the color of flowers, we can quantify and control those human traits.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
> We discovered and innovated heavily on amazing pieces of technology (Computers, Web, Phones, Efficient Algorithms). A lot of the research efforts that discovered these things were funded by governments for the purpose of conducting war more effectively and efficiently. The internet was created to maintain command and control in the advent of a nuclear war. A lot of operations research was about improving factory production of war materiel. The desire to simulate nuclear explosions drove a lot of super computing research (look at all the Department of Energy contracts for supercomputers). Throughout human history, the desire to efficiently kill other humans without being killed yourself has driven a lot of technology development, and this is unlikely to change in the future.
bumblebee4 7y ago
How can you escape survival of the fittest? With 8G people, it's a numbers game. Even if one or the other is driven by interesting motivations, is that a strategic advantage the competition for the fittest business processes?
est 7y ago
> We discovered and innovated heavily on amazing pieces of technology (Computers, Web, Phones, Efficient Algorithms) These technologies are funded by defence industries in the first place. https://steveblank.com/secret-history/ https://steveblank.com/secret-history/

naringas 7y ago

>“We are going to be shocked by the speed, the chaos, the bloodiness, and the friction of a future fight in which this will be playing out, I think this article's focus is way off It's more plausible that algorithmic warfare is going to make us unsure as to what is even happening. We are going to be lost, drowned, in conflicting plausible information to the point we won't even know what is going in nor who to believe

Damorian 7y ago
Going to be? We're already there.
joyjoyjoy 7y ago
Meanwhile, in the late-twentieth-century phase of the arms race, the role of unpredictable chance increased. When hours (or days) and miles (or hundreds of miles) separate defeat from victory, and therefore an error of command can be remedied by throwing in reserves, or retreating, or counterattacking, then there is room to reduce the element of chance. But when micromillimeters and nanoseconds determine the outcome, then chance enters like a god of war, deciding victory or defeat; it is magnified and lifted out of the microscopic scale of atomic physics. The fastest, best weapons system comes up against the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which nothing can overcome, because that principle is a basic property of matter in the Universe. It need not be a computer breakdown in satellite reconnaissance or in missiles whose warheads parry defenses with laser beams; if a series of electronic defensive impulses is even a billionth of a second slow in meeting a similar series of offensive impulses, that is enough for a toss of the dice to decide the outcome of the Final Encounter. Unaware of this state of affairs, the major antagonists of the planet devised two opposite strategies. One can call them the "scalpel" and the "hammer." The constant escalation of pay-load megatonnage was the hammer; the improvement of detection and swift destruction in flight was the scalpel. They also reckoned on the deterrent of the "dead man's revenge": the enemy would realize that even in winning he would perish, since a totally obliterated country would still respond -- automatically and posthumously -- with a strike that would make defeat universal. Such was the direction the arms race was taking, and such was its destination, which no one wanted but no one knew how to avoid. How does the engineer minimize error in a very large, very complex system? He does trial runs to test it; he looks for weak spots, weak links. But there was no way of testing a system designed to wage global nuclear war, a system made up of surface, submarine, air-launched, and satellite missiles, antimissiles, and multiple centers of command and communications, ready to loose gigantic destructive forces in wave on wave of reciprocal atomic strikes. No maneuvers, no computer simulation, could re-create the actual conditions of such a battle. Increasing speed of operation marked each new weapons system, particularly the decision-making function (to strike or not to strike, where, how, with what force held in reserve, at what risk, etc.), and this increasing speed also brought the incalculable factor of chance into play. Lightning-fast systems made lightning-fast mistakes. When a fraction of a second determined the safety or destruction of a region, a great metropolis, an industrial complex, or a large fleet, it was impossible to achieve military certainty. One could even say that victory had ceased to be distinguishable from defeat. In a word, the arms race was heading toward a Pyrrhic situation.

carapace 7y ago

What about the idea that technology can bring about a post-historical techno-utopia where war would be obsolete? I mean, technology is a general amplifier, we should choose what to amplify.

ganzuul 7y ago

This will also push the front-line of war back in time, because democracy is vulnerable to psy-ops. For example, there is a lot of hatred brewing against the Chinese government caused by unverifiable claims of concentration camps. There doesn't need to be a state actor behind it. There doesn't even need to be a conspiracy. Individual people are willing to cause plausibly deniable harm for even imaginary profit. They can exploit pagerank-type algorithms based on intuition alone. Pagerank algos aren't designed for war but it is difficult to claim they didn't have a contribution in the current round of unrest in the Middle East. The exploitation of psychology for mass-marketing has been going on since shortly after WWII. Currently market forces which are also algorithmic in nature are pushing to make mobile devices ever more addictive and it would be surprising if using AI to accelerate this process is a new idea. With 2 billion users and no ethics Facebook has become a kind of shadow government, with the power to have non-users like me frozen-out by omission by my own family. It is crazy not to be terrified of what they have done.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
arcticfox 7y ago
> For example, there is a lot of hatred brewing against the Chinese government caused by unverifiable claims of concentration camps. "unverifiable claims" - what? Even the Chinese government admits they exist/existed [0]. Overall I think your point that it's overwhelmingly easy to confuse the truth these days is exactly right, but you're the subject in your example instead of the people you point the finger at. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/30/world/asia/china-xinjiang.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/30/world/asia/china-xinjiang...
- ganzuul 7y ago
  Concentration camps, not internment camps. Different claims. There are verifiable claims and then there are claims which are not verified. People look terrible when sick and dying and most people overlook that the being sick and dying is happening while receiving medical care in a hospital setting. The images from the Nazi concentration camps is something completely different. The same thing happened after WWII where some people tacked on unverifiable claims to the long list of Nazi atrocities. A well-known debunked claim although not of atrocities is by someone claiming he was nasally administering cocaine to Hitler. Claims like these require investigation and detract from attention given to real leads, but that takes work and people instead form mobs and repeat the most relatable claims. - I don't see why I need to spell out how to decouple my personal experience from the narrative I presented. Seems trivial to generalize.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago

One of the big areas where AI will have a huge impact in warfare is logistics. When fighting in hostile territory (which pretty much all US wars have been since the Civil War), one of the most vulnerable parts is the supply train. Having to devote humans to drive the supplies and guard the supplies is expensive and risk prone. Instead, I imagine that supplies will be brought to the front lines via self-driving vehicles watched over by armed drones that are programmed to destroy anything that tries to interfere with the supply convoy. Just doing that one thing will have huge implications for the way wars are fought the the costs associated with the wars.

KineticLensman 7y ago
> Instead, I imagine that supplies will be brought to the front lines via self-driving vehicles watched over by armed drones that are programmed to destroy anything that tries to interfere with the supply convoy. You only need to wreck the lead vehicle in a convoy to stop those behind making any progress. A high-tech adversary could do this by a deep precision strike, and a low-tech enemy could simply emplace some mines or IEDs (remotely triggered).

gumby 7y ago

War, as in pitched battles on a field, has been going away for a long time. Perpetual war, unfortunately, is back. If you believe Clauzewitz's dictum that "war is diplomacy by any other means" then than disinformation, continual, slow, background degradation of the infrastructure of perceived enemies and the like will become the standard mode of large nation states, with actual shooting being the guerrilla/terrorist activity of those who can't afford the electronic ops. Something that also has been the nature of the world since forever (David/Goliath, US revolution, WWII partisans, Al Qaida....any so many in between). And BTW once you have this capability wouldn't you use it internally to "ensure domestic tranquility"? Once again The Sheep Look Up and Stand on Zanzibar are highly predictive.

emilfihlman 7y ago
War is a special case of competition, ie competition through violence, violent competition of nations or large body actors. But calling perpetual competition war because is questionable. We have always been influencing each other. It's not war.
- gumby 7y ago
  I specifically don't mean perpetual "competition" so thanks for flagging that I was not clear. I consider competition to be not just commercial competition, colonial (ugh) competition, spying and the like. Spying in fact can avert war (well understood in game theory, hence the overflight treaties). But when spend time specifically probing and actually attacking, say, your perceived opponents' infrastructure (e.g. "cyberattack" of another country's electronic grid) I consider that warfare. Student was unambiguously an act of war, though Iran was too weak to respond (also: clever!). In particular Iran posed no threat to the US, but attacking its nuclear capabilities served US geopolitical interests (Iran did and does threaten US allies). If you destroy or degrade someone's capabilities remotely instead of sending a high explosive, do you not consider that perpetual war? Developing such capabilities is not, inherently, war, nor is probing for weaknesses. But if the US considers Russia an adversary (a small economy, large land and population next to various allies) I can see how someone could consider it reasonable to make it harder for its government to function. I disagree, and do consider it warfare.

freeflight 7y ago

It's kind of weird how the US DoD complains about lack of computation power and has to ask the private sector for help, while the NSA [0] apparently has no problem running their own AI program. Imho way more interesting and relevant than those somewhat far-flung future concepts about fully autonomous warfare. [0] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/02/the-nsas-skynet-program-may-be-killing-thousands-of-innocent-people/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/02/the-n...