4 ms·
Says modelled on this, which attracts another $15 for each $ invested. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-Q-Tel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-Q-Tel Look,
by richardw 5y ago
Says modelled on this, which attracts another $15 for each $ invested.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-Q-Tel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-Q-Tel
Look, last year it didn’t exist. They haven’t capped all investment in the industry. If it does well it could attract a lot more.
- 3pt14159 5y agoYeah I know all about In-Q-Tel and DARPA. I have a friend who was funded by In-Q-Tel a decade ago or so. The thing that I'm trying to express, the thing that policy makers can't quite get their heads around, is that war AI is different. It's not a little startup-y thing you can cobble together until it sorta, kinda works for a specific use-case. We already have that. Missiles, aircraft, nuclear weapons simulations all have specialized AI. But that isn't the future. The future is something like Alpha Zero being applied to a whole domain or a whole battlefield. Something that coordinates and controls all the ships, planes, missiles, drones, and sensors in an arena for as total domination as can be achieved. We've had AI that augments human ability for decades. And it is effective, no question. But that isn't what is going to define the next generation of warfare.