7 ms·

Eric Schmidt Is Building the Perfect AI War-Fighting Machine

41 points by kjhughes 4y ago

CharlesW 4y ago
Archive link: https://archive.is/ve86J https://archive.is/ve86J
aww_dang 4y ago
Why must the journalist use the word "metaverse" here? >...some of that work can be done more effectively in the metaverse. Wouldn't "simulation" be a more appropriate word? Buzzwords seem to devolve into meaninglessness.
- dvh 4y ago
  At least they're not using blockchain
  - seydor 4y ago
    I thought that was part of the metaverse!
  - klyrs 4y ago
    I have a different proposal... 1. Teach deathbots the value of bitcoin 2. Teach deathbots how to hash 3. Sit back and enjoy Pax Robotica
  - jjtheblunt 4y ago
    maybe the metaverse they refer to is implemented with a blockchain, itself implemented in Rust, for maximal current events points.
    - seydor 4y ago
      Of course not, it is implemented in Solidity, and contracts have AI agency
      - jjtheblunt 4y ago
        :)
mistrial9 4y ago
World leaders, readers, all -- stop this war. Turn your direction and just stop.
- eppp 4y ago
  Which war?
- gnramires 4y ago
  You speak for all of us :)
red-iron-pine 4y ago
Do you want Skynet? Because this is how you get Skynet. Or maybe the Screamers / The Second Variety. What good will come of this?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- kibwen 4y ago
  > What good will come of this? To our chagrin, this increasingly describes the tech industry in general.
hospadar 4y ago
Great place to apply Betteridge's Law: >The former Google CEO is on a mission to rewire the US military with cutting-edge artificial intelligence to take on China. Will it make the world safer? No. Hot take: making stuff that kills people doesn't make people safer.
- eppp 4y ago
  I think you could make an argument that nuclear weapons made many parts of the world safer for quite a while in exchange for a catastrophic risk.
  - bcrl 4y ago
    The world we need is one where AI driven weapons can continue to seek out and kill people long after their masters are dead.
    - nequo 4y ago
      This one-sentence prompt could inspire so many sci-fi dystopias, from cheap to intricate.
- dandanua 4y ago
  It makes killers safer, until their own weapons will be targeted at them. I have a strong belief that the current AI weapons race could be the last one. The world should look for a better consensus between all the species, not for a domination.
leeroyjenkins11 4y ago
What I fear are hypersonic weapons and other fast delivery systems that will require AI offensive and counter offensive weapons. At what point will humans need to be removed from the loop because a human response will mean that we would be destroyed. What happens when you have superpowers that have AI stats constantly checking on when the optimal nuke or emp time is, or even worse, faulty info or hacked info that tells it when are under attack and issues a counter offensive. Or it interprets human intent incorrectly.
- DoesntMatter22 4y ago
  What surprised me is how fast icbms travel. It's like 15 minutes from Russia to the US via ICBM. Other side of the planet in no time because it's traveling though outer space to get here
  - YurgenJurgensen 4y ago
    The US isn't on the other side of the planet to Russia. The missiles fly over the Arctic, and typically travel less than a quarter of the circumference of the planet.
    - DoesntMatter22 4y ago
      Still 15 minutes is incredibly fast. Even if it was 30 minutes it's super quick when a plane flight would be like 16 hours or something
      - freediver 4y ago
        They fly at 7 km/s.
- jhoelzel 4y ago
  There is actually a Stargate episode about this where two civilisations lived in bunkers and fought each other with drones without really knowing why anymore.
yunwal 4y ago
In all seriousness, working on projects like this should be a Mark of Death in the tech community. Programmers, VCs, anyone who actually gives a shit should outright refuse to work with people who make things like this.
- rcme 4y ago
  Why? Surely you understand that your entire existence is predicated on being protected by a sovereign nation that prevents others from murdering you and stealing your stuff.
  - georgeg23 4y ago
    World is too small for this mindset anymore. Isolationism is no longer possible.
    - rcme 4y ago
      Tell that to Ukraine.
      - 0_____0 4y ago
        I think they know already?
  - yunwal 4y ago
    Ah and that means we have to build the death robot. Right. I'd personally prefer we take the disarmament approach, but there's no money in that I guess.
    - rcme 4y ago
      I agree that peace would be ideal, but that's not how things have played out historically. The pattern thus far in human history has been: 1) Group of people gain a technological advantage 2) Said group of people use the technological advantage to kill or subjugate others. The right strategy is probably to hope for the best and plan for the worst.
ks2048 4y ago
A huge AI cold-war with China... what could go wrong? The only thing certain is Schmidt and other insiders will make massive personal profits.
mountainb 4y ago
The lede is buried here in that the biggest problem is in defense procurement regulation and not really in technology or money. The other unspoken issue is labor and environmental regulation, which also influences the same problem, as does overall costs. If you think it's hard to build a condo, think about how hard it is to build all the foundries, chemical factories, and other similar heavy industries in the US. In the '70s-'80s, the US decided to "solve" its labor and environmental problems by sending heavy industry (with all of its attendant problems) elsewhere. This poses special problems for defense procurement because of the need to have trusted sources. There is no easy solution, so there will have to be catastrophe first before it starts to be addressed.
- phkahler 4y ago
  It seems like a lot of heavy industry could be environmentally friendly. It was just cheaper to send it overseas. Cars are still built in the US and that's pretty heavy. Excavation equipment is as well.
  - ahoya 4y ago
    What cars??
trabant00 4y ago
From the comments so far seems like nobody read the article. There is no "AI" or any involvement in the actual fighting. The start-up backed by Eric Schmidt is virtually testing component designs to search for faults, incompatibilities and such. It's a ML CI for CAD projects: > Ishtari uses machine learning to virtually assemble and test war machines from computer models of individual components, such as the chassis and engines, that are usually marooned on separate digital drawing boards
yboris 4y ago
Must post about this topic: https://www.stopkillerrobots.org/ https://www.stopkillerrobots.org/
johnohara 4y ago
Lest we forget, the internet grew out of the arpanet. I would proffer no single human, or group of humans, fully understands the whole thing. The current state of AI development seems to be on the same trajectory as the arpanet in 1975 with one exception, growth will be more exponential.
tablespoon 4y ago
> “Let's imagine we’re going to build a better war-fighting system,” Schmidt says, outlining what would amount to an enormous overhaul of the most powerful military operation on earth. “We would just create a tech company.” ... Independent studies and congressional hearings have found that it can take years for the DOD to select and buy software, which may be outdated by the time it is installed. Schmidt says this is a huge problem for the US, because computerization, software, and networking are poised to revolutionize warfare. I'm not sure if "tech company" is the right model for weapons systems. Tech companies are often terrible at support and reliability. The military needs rugged and reliable systems with long service lives, and tech companies aren't know for that. They are known for taking shortcuts on QA, releasing with bugs and fixing them in a later release (if at all), not supporting products for more than a few years, etc. Also, I'm not sure how military software can be "outdated," except compared to rival militaries. It's specialized stuff, and can be state of the art even it's written in Ada. > Schmidt says, because of procurement rules that forbid the Pentagon from handing out money without going through careful but overly lengthy review processes. The process can definitely be changed, but I feel like this is probably complaining about the tradeoffs. Isn't the current process designed to minimize corruption/maximize fairness (e.g. anyone has a fair shot if they can meet the requirements)? If you reduce the reviews, I bet there will be far more complaints of large contracts going to well-connected cronies.

41 points by kjhughes 4y ago

Archive link: https://archive.is/ve86J https://archive.is/ve86J

Why must the journalist use the word "metaverse" here? >...some of that work can be done more effectively in the metaverse. Wouldn't "simulation" be a more appropriate word? Buzzwords seem to devolve into meaninglessness.

dvh 4y ago
At least they're not using blockchain
- seydor 4y ago
  I thought that was part of the metaverse!
- klyrs 4y ago
  I have a different proposal... 1. Teach deathbots the value of bitcoin 2. Teach deathbots how to hash 3. Sit back and enjoy Pax Robotica
- jjtheblunt 4y ago
  maybe the metaverse they refer to is implemented with a blockchain, itself implemented in Rust, for maximal current events points.
  - seydor 4y ago
    Of course not, it is implemented in Solidity, and contracts have AI agency
    - jjtheblunt 4y ago
      :)

mistrial9 4y ago

World leaders, readers, all -- stop this war. Turn your direction and just stop.

eppp 4y ago
Which war?
gnramires 4y ago
You speak for all of us :)

red-iron-pine 4y ago

Do you want Skynet? Because this is how you get Skynet. Or maybe the Screamers / The Second Variety. What good will come of this?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
kibwen 4y ago
> What good will come of this? To our chagrin, this increasingly describes the tech industry in general.

hospadar 4y ago

Great place to apply Betteridge's Law: >The former Google CEO is on a mission to rewire the US military with cutting-edge artificial intelligence to take on China. Will it make the world safer? No. Hot take: making stuff that kills people doesn't make people safer.

eppp 4y ago
I think you could make an argument that nuclear weapons made many parts of the world safer for quite a while in exchange for a catastrophic risk.
- bcrl 4y ago
  The world we need is one where AI driven weapons can continue to seek out and kill people long after their masters are dead.
  - nequo 4y ago
    This one-sentence prompt could inspire so many sci-fi dystopias, from cheap to intricate.
dandanua 4y ago
It makes killers safer, until their own weapons will be targeted at them. I have a strong belief that the current AI weapons race could be the last one. The world should look for a better consensus between all the species, not for a domination.

leeroyjenkins11 4y ago

What I fear are hypersonic weapons and other fast delivery systems that will require AI offensive and counter offensive weapons. At what point will humans need to be removed from the loop because a human response will mean that we would be destroyed. What happens when you have superpowers that have AI stats constantly checking on when the optimal nuke or emp time is, or even worse, faulty info or hacked info that tells it when are under attack and issues a counter offensive. Or it interprets human intent incorrectly.

DoesntMatter22 4y ago
What surprised me is how fast icbms travel. It's like 15 minutes from Russia to the US via ICBM. Other side of the planet in no time because it's traveling though outer space to get here
- YurgenJurgensen 4y ago
  The US isn't on the other side of the planet to Russia. The missiles fly over the Arctic, and typically travel less than a quarter of the circumference of the planet.
  - DoesntMatter22 4y ago
    Still 15 minutes is incredibly fast. Even if it was 30 minutes it's super quick when a plane flight would be like 16 hours or something
    - freediver 4y ago
      They fly at 7 km/s.
jhoelzel 4y ago
There is actually a Stargate episode about this where two civilisations lived in bunkers and fought each other with drones without really knowing why anymore.

yunwal 4y ago

In all seriousness, working on projects like this should be a Mark of Death in the tech community. Programmers, VCs, anyone who actually gives a shit should outright refuse to work with people who make things like this.

rcme 4y ago
Why? Surely you understand that your entire existence is predicated on being protected by a sovereign nation that prevents others from murdering you and stealing your stuff.
- georgeg23 4y ago
  World is too small for this mindset anymore. Isolationism is no longer possible.
  - rcme 4y ago
    Tell that to Ukraine.
    - 0_____0 4y ago
      I think they know already?
- yunwal 4y ago
  Ah and that means we have to build the death robot. Right. I'd personally prefer we take the disarmament approach, but there's no money in that I guess.
  - rcme 4y ago
    I agree that peace would be ideal, but that's not how things have played out historically. The pattern thus far in human history has been: 1) Group of people gain a technological advantage 2) Said group of people use the technological advantage to kill or subjugate others. The right strategy is probably to hope for the best and plan for the worst.

ks2048 4y ago

A huge AI cold-war with China... what could go wrong? The only thing certain is Schmidt and other insiders will make massive personal profits.

mountainb 4y ago

The lede is buried here in that the biggest problem is in defense procurement regulation and not really in technology or money. The other unspoken issue is labor and environmental regulation, which also influences the same problem, as does overall costs. If you think it's hard to build a condo, think about how hard it is to build all the foundries, chemical factories, and other similar heavy industries in the US. In the '70s-'80s, the US decided to "solve" its labor and environmental problems by sending heavy industry (with all of its attendant problems) elsewhere. This poses special problems for defense procurement because of the need to have trusted sources. There is no easy solution, so there will have to be catastrophe first before it starts to be addressed.

phkahler 4y ago
It seems like a lot of heavy industry could be environmentally friendly. It was just cheaper to send it overseas. Cars are still built in the US and that's pretty heavy. Excavation equipment is as well.
- ahoya 4y ago
  What cars??

trabant00 4y ago

From the comments so far seems like nobody read the article. There is no "AI" or any involvement in the actual fighting. The start-up backed by Eric Schmidt is virtually testing component designs to search for faults, incompatibilities and such. It's a ML CI for CAD projects: > Ishtari uses machine learning to virtually assemble and test war machines from computer models of individual components, such as the chassis and engines, that are usually marooned on separate digital drawing boards

yboris 4y ago

Must post about this topic: https://www.stopkillerrobots.org/ https://www.stopkillerrobots.org/

johnohara 4y ago

Lest we forget, the internet grew out of the arpanet. I would proffer no single human, or group of humans, fully understands the whole thing. The current state of AI development seems to be on the same trajectory as the arpanet in 1975 with one exception, growth will be more exponential.

tablespoon 4y ago

> “Let's imagine we’re going to build a better war-fighting system,” Schmidt says, outlining what would amount to an enormous overhaul of the most powerful military operation on earth. “We would just create a tech company.” ... Independent studies and congressional hearings have found that it can take years for the DOD to select and buy software, which may be outdated by the time it is installed. Schmidt says this is a huge problem for the US, because computerization, software, and networking are poised to revolutionize warfare. I'm not sure if "tech company" is the right model for weapons systems. Tech companies are often terrible at support and reliability. The military needs rugged and reliable systems with long service lives, and tech companies aren't know for that. They are known for taking shortcuts on QA, releasing with bugs and fixing them in a later release (if at all), not supporting products for more than a few years, etc. Also, I'm not sure how military software can be "outdated," except compared to rival militaries. It's specialized stuff, and can be state of the art even it's written in Ada. > Schmidt says, because of procurement rules that forbid the Pentagon from handing out money without going through careful but overly lengthy review processes. The process can definitely be changed, but I feel like this is probably complaining about the tradeoffs. Isn't the current process designed to minimize corruption/maximize fairness (e.g. anyone has a fair shot if they can meet the requirements)? If you reduce the reviews, I bet there will be far more complaints of large contracts going to well-connected cronies.