5 ms·

To your point, I literally laughed out loud at this in the article: Based on the pace of progress with AI technology today, I believe this is less than 10 year

by 300bps 4y ago

To your point, I literally laughed out loud at this in the article: Based on the pace of progress with AI technology today, I believe this is less than 10 years away. How does anyone write things like this and expect to be taken seriously with the track record of AI regarding real world things like autonomous driving?

notjoemama 4y ago
Surely someone has a "law" that states generalized AI is always 10 years away.
- qbrass 4y ago
  It's usually predicted as 25-50 years away because of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maes%E2%80%93Garreau_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maes%E2%80%93Garreau_law A 10 year prediction is because this is the CEO of a company saying it. So the lifespan used in the prediction is that of the company and not the person.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dirtyid 4y ago
> autonomous driving Autonomous driving is "hard", where hard is mininizing unintentaional death for domestic adoption. Autonmous murdering is easier, perhaps much easier. Because flying from point A to B without obstacles is simpler than driving, and droning a few thousand innocents due to permissive ROE is forgone. It's a vastly different calculations in terms of allowable deaths and hardware attrition.
- 300bps 4y ago
  Autonomous murdering is easier, perhaps much easier. Is it really though? One variable that autonomous driving has in its favor is nobody is actively trying to disrupt it. What happens when people put up nets around key areas? Fishing line? GPS jammers? Lasers to disable cameras? LiDAR blocking? Radar jamming? EMP? Radio jamming? All of this is being studied today and will at least keep pace with AI advancements. For just one example: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/chinese-engineers-shot-down-large-drone-using-electromagnetic-pulse-192571 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/chinese-engineers-sho... Autonomous vehicles don’t have to deal with any of these. Autonomous murder devices most assuredly will because people have a strong incentive to prevent their own murder.
  - dirtyid 4y ago
    IMO yes, mass attritionable UAVs exacerbates fundemental disadvantage of anti air - hard to defend everywhere vs air power easier to concentrate to create local tactical superiority. Countermeasures can keep pace but doesn't mean they can match scale. It's typically going to be easier to mass UAVs who can use standoff munitions than to preposition defensive assets, especially land based ones, in sufficient concentrations which can be countered by adding more UAVs during mission planning. Countermeasures for high performance UAVs, essentially unmanned fighters instead of low tier drones will be very difficult. Advanced US/PRC HALE drones fly much higher and potentially faster, there's a reason counters like DE or various form of jamming target their ordnances at lower attitudes, not high flying, fast flying drones themselves which still requires combination of high performing ground and air based interceptors that can hit high. Except UAVs can tactically operate without life preservation in mind, which means much more permissive/aggressive operations = even more difficult requirements for counter-air infra. Ultimately it's balance between offense / defensive is matter of industrial base, producing and positioning enough hardware to overwhelm opponents. Effects on battleground will be situational, i.e. large powers can already overwhelm smaller powers, and for peer powers it will be theatre specific, i.e. PRC can more easily overwhelm US carrier groups with mass drones because CSGs has finite VLS cells, power generation etc for defense whereas land based aviation can be massed at scale. Alternatively, PRC's very comprehensive anti-air network might be more easily penetrated by aggressive UAV formations using tactics manned missions won't attempt.
  - tossemaccount22 4y ago
    You have a valid point. But as a person who has worked in industrial automation, and also the military, yeah automatic murder is probably 50x easier than preventing human bodily harm. Just having machinery around people is inherently dangerous. But aside from complex concepts, The mine for example, is potentially one of the first Automated Killing devices, and is notoriously good at it. Integrating technology into simple killing devices isn't very difficult compared to keeping people safe from harm. And while I agree that there are plenty of good ways to stop automated killing devices, you have to make big sacrifices to stop them, and that's another point to be made about this unique situation. You either have to outpace your opponents technology, or be willing to fight without some or all of your own, because when you start introducing stuff like what you listed above, you can no longer use your own systems of defense, which then makes you vulnerable to other conventional forms of attack, giving the advantage to the technologically superior team. In my opinion 'Terminator' might not be 10 years away, but automated killing devices are already in the field, and they aren't being reported on because they are classified. You would not believe the money and effort that goes into recovery of physical assets (working and destroyed) that are in theatre.

by 300bps 4y ago

notjoemama 4y ago

Surely someone has a "law" that states generalized AI is always 10 years away.

qbrass 4y ago
It's usually predicted as 25-50 years away because of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maes%E2%80%93Garreau_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maes%E2%80%93Garreau_law A 10 year prediction is because this is the CEO of a company saying it. So the lifespan used in the prediction is that of the company and not the person.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

dirtyid 4y ago

> autonomous driving Autonomous driving is "hard", where hard is mininizing unintentaional death for domestic adoption. Autonmous murdering is easier, perhaps much easier. Because flying from point A to B without obstacles is simpler than driving, and droning a few thousand innocents due to permissive ROE is forgone. It's a vastly different calculations in terms of allowable deaths and hardware attrition.

300bps 4y ago
Autonomous murdering is easier, perhaps much easier. Is it really though? One variable that autonomous driving has in its favor is nobody is actively trying to disrupt it. What happens when people put up nets around key areas? Fishing line? GPS jammers? Lasers to disable cameras? LiDAR blocking? Radar jamming? EMP? Radio jamming? All of this is being studied today and will at least keep pace with AI advancements. For just one example: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/chinese-engineers-shot-down-large-drone-using-electromagnetic-pulse-192571 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/chinese-engineers-sho... Autonomous vehicles don’t have to deal with any of these. Autonomous murder devices most assuredly will because people have a strong incentive to prevent their own murder.
- dirtyid 4y ago
  IMO yes, mass attritionable UAVs exacerbates fundemental disadvantage of anti air - hard to defend everywhere vs air power easier to concentrate to create local tactical superiority. Countermeasures can keep pace but doesn't mean they can match scale. It's typically going to be easier to mass UAVs who can use standoff munitions than to preposition defensive assets, especially land based ones, in sufficient concentrations which can be countered by adding more UAVs during mission planning. Countermeasures for high performance UAVs, essentially unmanned fighters instead of low tier drones will be very difficult. Advanced US/PRC HALE drones fly much higher and potentially faster, there's a reason counters like DE or various form of jamming target their ordnances at lower attitudes, not high flying, fast flying drones themselves which still requires combination of high performing ground and air based interceptors that can hit high. Except UAVs can tactically operate without life preservation in mind, which means much more permissive/aggressive operations = even more difficult requirements for counter-air infra. Ultimately it's balance between offense / defensive is matter of industrial base, producing and positioning enough hardware to overwhelm opponents. Effects on battleground will be situational, i.e. large powers can already overwhelm smaller powers, and for peer powers it will be theatre specific, i.e. PRC can more easily overwhelm US carrier groups with mass drones because CSGs has finite VLS cells, power generation etc for defense whereas land based aviation can be massed at scale. Alternatively, PRC's very comprehensive anti-air network might be more easily penetrated by aggressive UAV formations using tactics manned missions won't attempt.
- tossemaccount22 4y ago
  You have a valid point. But as a person who has worked in industrial automation, and also the military, yeah automatic murder is probably 50x easier than preventing human bodily harm. Just having machinery around people is inherently dangerous. But aside from complex concepts, The mine for example, is potentially one of the first Automated Killing devices, and is notoriously good at it. Integrating technology into simple killing devices isn't very difficult compared to keeping people safe from harm. And while I agree that there are plenty of good ways to stop automated killing devices, you have to make big sacrifices to stop them, and that's another point to be made about this unique situation. You either have to outpace your opponents technology, or be willing to fight without some or all of your own, because when you start introducing stuff like what you listed above, you can no longer use your own systems of defense, which then makes you vulnerable to other conventional forms of attack, giving the advantage to the technologically superior team. In my opinion 'Terminator' might not be 10 years away, but automated killing devices are already in the field, and they aren't being reported on because they are classified. You would not believe the money and effort that goes into recovery of physical assets (working and destroyed) that are in theatre.