2 ms·

Sure, to a certain extent, algorithms are not so different than "strategies" that generals employ in response to enemy movements. But the speed and execution o

Sure, to a certain extent, algorithms are not so different than "strategies" that generals employ in response to enemy movements. But the speed and execution of these strategies can be improved order of magnitudes as we replace more parts of the system with machines. One can imagine Sun Tzu's chapter "Weak Points and Strong" discussing various heuristics and strategies to determine a combatant formation's weakest point. With machine algorithms, you could launch a similar probing attack instantaneously, and have the results analyzed and the striking attack coordinated before your enemy even hears the first reports of encounter.

vsareto 7y ago
>But the speed and execution of these strategies can be improved order of magnitudes as we replace more parts of the system with machines. You're going to be limited by military logistics. Things moving at certain speeds across the Earth. An algorithm can't change that until we get to AGI (maybe). I'm sure it can remove some human inefficiencies in organization, but there is a minimum time and you still need an overall goal like deciding to attack Russia. But besides that, the formations don't really matter. All country vs country warfare is based on long range, fast moving weaponry. Something like MOAB will incinerate the entire formation. To me it feels like military people trying to find a brand for this particular thing and to justify programs for it by inventing a need. Even then, for the US, these small gains just don't matter because of our overwhelming might.