5 ms·

It's an arms race then, sure. But why not stay in the race?

by kierenj 5y ago

tantalor 5y ago
Because arms races are pointless. See War Games (1983)
- danso 5y ago
  But WarGames is a fictional movie about a mutually assured destruction scenario? And even though it was famously watched by President Reagan [0], his response was decidedly not to abide by the philosophy of "the only winning move is not to play". Reagan presided over massive budget increases to keep up and attempt to win the arms race, including the extremely expensive but impotent "Star Wars" program [1]. Unlike "Star Wars", increasing the computational complexity and costs of mass face surveillance is not a decades-to-soon monolith project. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WarGames#Influence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WarGames#Influence [1] https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_07-08/Reagan https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_07-08/Reagan
  - HPsquared 5y ago
    Regarding the Star Wars program, perhaps the high cost was part of the motivation? (To saddle the opponent with similar costs)
    - dylan604 5y ago
      I hear this quite often, but I just wonder if that is hindsight rewriting/spinning the situation? Did the people in charge of Star Wars program know it was a sham and knew from the beginning that's what it was, or were they really trying to build a space based defense program that turned out to be too complicated and too expensive to do?
      - jjk166 5y ago
        In reality "star wars" was a moniker applied to several different programs which were part of the Strategic Defense Initiative geared towards missile defense. Part of the Strategic Defense Initiative was the ISTO, which funded basic research at national labs, which included some promising but ultimately impractical technologies - as is typical of basic research. Tech like isomer lasers and particle weapons made headlines, while missile guidance systems and radar systems and other such technologies which were much more seriously pursued didn't. Many of the technologies developed by the SDI remain at the core of modern missile defense systems. In fact, when one looks at the history in context, SDI only started getting wound down when the soviet union stopped being a threat and thus there was no longer a need to stop a large scale nuclear missile strike; while programs got renamed and were refocused on stopping different threats, the work never really stopped. So it would be inaccurate to describe the program as either a deliberate or accidental boondoggle. That being said, ever since the very beginning of missile defense, it was always understood that the system would never be a permanently impenetrable shield. At best it might take a few years for adversaries to develop a new weapon to get through, but most likely a system would only be able to deal with a portion of targets. But the purpose of missile defense is not to raise the costs for the adversary - if now they have to launch 3 missiles to guarantee a hit where before they needed 1, you've essentially tripled their costs, not including the development of any new technology which could also be considerable. The fact is the Soviet Union did spend a substantial amount on developing technologies to defeat Star Wars, and even today China and Russia are spending significant resources developing technologies like hypersonic missiles to deal with the successor programs. So while the implication that the US purposely pursued technologies it knew would never work to trick the Soviet Union into following suit is not true, the US was trying to hurt its adversaries economically.
  - harrierpigeon 5y ago
    I didn't watch the entire movie, just that clip- but I think that if you consider it slightly differently, the only winning move is not to launch, because everyone will die. If you don't have enough stuff to make sure everyone dies, then there is a chance of a winning move that results in some percentage of one party's population surviving and as a result they might take that chance. IMO, As a U.S. President, Reagan made the right decision to keep pushing, especially considering that he knew to some extent that the Soviets, their enemies, couldn't keep up forever financially. It's a really really cold calculation, but one that worked out. As we stand now, I think that privacy is on the losing side here, unfortunately- at the end of the day, we're up against our own and other governments, some of which have quite authoritarian regimes and have absolutely zero problems with at the very least using force to acquire funding. In WarGames, the only way to win is "not to play" when the playing field is level- this playing field is not level- to be able to beat this off, we need to be able to level the playing field somehow. Maybe I'm not smart enough or just can't see something, but I frankly don't know how that would be possible. ...holy cow, that's dark.
- throw1234651234 5y ago
  This is outright wrong. At some point one side outperforms, or "in universe(a la Cold War)" outspends/demoralizes the other and there is victory - aka, control of the global financial markets and geo-political dominance. Is it a net win for humanity? Having stockpiles of nukes isn't. The space, science, athletic, and social welfare race is. Competition drives progress. Hegemony leads to stagnation.
  - teawrecks 5y ago
    Ah, so mutually assured destruction has been impossible this whole time? What a relief!
- omginternets 5y ago
  I think you may be casually dismissing the entire field of game theory.
Ruthalas 5y ago
The difference is that if you 'lose', all your previous victories change to losses as well, as all the images you've released that were previously impervious are now fair game.
- shawnz 5y ago
  That still doesn't mean it's worse than not doing anything at all.
  - Ruthalas 5y ago
    Fair enough. I'd argue that in this case the winning move is not to make the potential liability of the data available. As an 'arms race', the outcomes are very unbalanced.
  - skeeter2020 5y ago
    it does mean doing the wrong this is worse than doing nothing. See: opportunity cost.
    - anigbrowl 5y ago
      Legitimate point.
  - lawtalkinghuman 5y ago
    In the long run, you are dead, at which point you probably don't care as much.
  - Kalium 5y ago
    It may, depending on the resources required. The thing about arms races is that they can easily impoverish everyone involved for no ultimate gain relative to one another.
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 5y ago
  Not necessarily. The phrase "buy some time" springs to mind. By the time your previous "wins" become "losses" it may not matter anymore.
skeeter2020 5y ago
I don't think it is an arms race; that implies if you keep plpaying you're really just buying time and raising the stakes until one side ultimately wins all in a zero-sum game. SPOILER: the image classifiers will not only win in the end, all that defense you played is now fuel to make them even better. I think a better notion is that of sunk cost. We have lost any approach that fights AI head-on. We should stop chasing this path and switch tactics, like changing online behaviours, education about privacy or, since developers love technical solutions, pursue technology solutions that leverage AI against this sort of cause. Example: what if we all switched to a morphing, deep-fake enabled visual representation? The better image identification got the more intense the msitakes would be.
- rriepe 5y ago
  I'm reminded of the suits they wore in A Scanner Darkly.
  - dopidopHN 5y ago
    With the Purdue trial. I keep coming back to how this weird story was actually describing our reality.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  The term we’re looking for might be “cat and mouse game.”
  - LightG 5y ago
    The last I looked, Jerry is still in the running.
spoonjim 5y ago
The end of the arms race is seen in captchas — where to defeat computer recognition they are largely outside the capabilities of human recognition.
- Zarathust 5y ago
  That is the nature of captchas by design. 2000s captchas can probably be solved by off the shelves OCR.

It's an arms race then, sure. But why not stay in the race?

tantalor 5y ago

Because arms races are pointless. See War Games (1983)

danso 5y ago
But WarGames is a fictional movie about a mutually assured destruction scenario? And even though it was famously watched by President Reagan [0], his response was decidedly not to abide by the philosophy of "the only winning move is not to play". Reagan presided over massive budget increases to keep up and attempt to win the arms race, including the extremely expensive but impotent "Star Wars" program [1]. Unlike "Star Wars", increasing the computational complexity and costs of mass face surveillance is not a decades-to-soon monolith project. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WarGames#Influence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WarGames#Influence [1] https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_07-08/Reagan https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_07-08/Reagan
- HPsquared 5y ago
  Regarding the Star Wars program, perhaps the high cost was part of the motivation? (To saddle the opponent with similar costs)
  - dylan604 5y ago
    I hear this quite often, but I just wonder if that is hindsight rewriting/spinning the situation? Did the people in charge of Star Wars program know it was a sham and knew from the beginning that's what it was, or were they really trying to build a space based defense program that turned out to be too complicated and too expensive to do?
    - jjk166 5y ago
      In reality "star wars" was a moniker applied to several different programs which were part of the Strategic Defense Initiative geared towards missile defense. Part of the Strategic Defense Initiative was the ISTO, which funded basic research at national labs, which included some promising but ultimately impractical technologies - as is typical of basic research. Tech like isomer lasers and particle weapons made headlines, while missile guidance systems and radar systems and other such technologies which were much more seriously pursued didn't. Many of the technologies developed by the SDI remain at the core of modern missile defense systems. In fact, when one looks at the history in context, SDI only started getting wound down when the soviet union stopped being a threat and thus there was no longer a need to stop a large scale nuclear missile strike; while programs got renamed and were refocused on stopping different threats, the work never really stopped. So it would be inaccurate to describe the program as either a deliberate or accidental boondoggle. That being said, ever since the very beginning of missile defense, it was always understood that the system would never be a permanently impenetrable shield. At best it might take a few years for adversaries to develop a new weapon to get through, but most likely a system would only be able to deal with a portion of targets. But the purpose of missile defense is not to raise the costs for the adversary - if now they have to launch 3 missiles to guarantee a hit where before they needed 1, you've essentially tripled their costs, not including the development of any new technology which could also be considerable. The fact is the Soviet Union did spend a substantial amount on developing technologies to defeat Star Wars, and even today China and Russia are spending significant resources developing technologies like hypersonic missiles to deal with the successor programs. So while the implication that the US purposely pursued technologies it knew would never work to trick the Soviet Union into following suit is not true, the US was trying to hurt its adversaries economically.
- harrierpigeon 5y ago
  I didn't watch the entire movie, just that clip- but I think that if you consider it slightly differently, the only winning move is not to launch, because everyone will die. If you don't have enough stuff to make sure everyone dies, then there is a chance of a winning move that results in some percentage of one party's population surviving and as a result they might take that chance. IMO, As a U.S. President, Reagan made the right decision to keep pushing, especially considering that he knew to some extent that the Soviets, their enemies, couldn't keep up forever financially. It's a really really cold calculation, but one that worked out. As we stand now, I think that privacy is on the losing side here, unfortunately- at the end of the day, we're up against our own and other governments, some of which have quite authoritarian regimes and have absolutely zero problems with at the very least using force to acquire funding. In WarGames, the only way to win is "not to play" when the playing field is level- this playing field is not level- to be able to beat this off, we need to be able to level the playing field somehow. Maybe I'm not smart enough or just can't see something, but I frankly don't know how that would be possible. ...holy cow, that's dark.
throw1234651234 5y ago
This is outright wrong. At some point one side outperforms, or "in universe(a la Cold War)" outspends/demoralizes the other and there is victory - aka, control of the global financial markets and geo-political dominance. Is it a net win for humanity? Having stockpiles of nukes isn't. The space, science, athletic, and social welfare race is. Competition drives progress. Hegemony leads to stagnation.
- teawrecks 5y ago
  Ah, so mutually assured destruction has been impossible this whole time? What a relief!
omginternets 5y ago
I think you may be casually dismissing the entire field of game theory.

Ruthalas 5y ago

The difference is that if you 'lose', all your previous victories change to losses as well, as all the images you've released that were previously impervious are now fair game.

shawnz 5y ago
That still doesn't mean it's worse than not doing anything at all.
- Ruthalas 5y ago
  Fair enough. I'd argue that in this case the winning move is not to make the potential liability of the data available. As an 'arms race', the outcomes are very unbalanced.
- skeeter2020 5y ago
  it does mean doing the wrong this is worse than doing nothing. See: opportunity cost.
  - anigbrowl 5y ago
    Legitimate point.
- lawtalkinghuman 5y ago
  In the long run, you are dead, at which point you probably don't care as much.
- Kalium 5y ago
  It may, depending on the resources required. The thing about arms races is that they can easily impoverish everyone involved for no ultimate gain relative to one another.
kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 5y ago
Not necessarily. The phrase "buy some time" springs to mind. By the time your previous "wins" become "losses" it may not matter anymore.

skeeter2020 5y ago

I don't think it is an arms race; that implies if you keep plpaying you're really just buying time and raising the stakes until one side ultimately wins all in a zero-sum game. SPOILER: the image classifiers will not only win in the end, all that defense you played is now fuel to make them even better. I think a better notion is that of sunk cost. We have lost any approach that fights AI head-on. We should stop chasing this path and switch tactics, like changing online behaviours, education about privacy or, since developers love technical solutions, pursue technology solutions that leverage AI against this sort of cause. Example: what if we all switched to a morphing, deep-fake enabled visual representation? The better image identification got the more intense the msitakes would be.

rriepe 5y ago
I'm reminded of the suits they wore in A Scanner Darkly.
- dopidopHN 5y ago
  With the Purdue trial. I keep coming back to how this weird story was actually describing our reality.
tshaddox 5y ago
The term we’re looking for might be “cat and mouse game.”
- LightG 5y ago
  The last I looked, Jerry is still in the running.

spoonjim 5y ago

The end of the arms race is seen in captchas — where to defeat computer recognition they are largely outside the capabilities of human recognition.

Zarathust 5y ago
That is the nature of captchas by design. 2000s captchas can probably be solved by off the shelves OCR.