3 ms·
The scary thing with the future of weapons is that they seem to increase plausible deniability thus changing the game theory equation to one of more aggression.
by throwaway13337 2y ago
The scary thing with the future of weapons is that they seem to increase plausible deniability thus changing the game theory equation to one of more aggression.
The basic tenant of a lot of the games we play are of attributing past actions to another agent. If there is no attribution, playing fair makes less sense.
Hacking, media manipulation ops, and commodity drones can be used in a way that does not reveal the origin. That means that there cannot be retribution or, more perversely, it can mean incorrect attribution and retribution.
This lowers the cost of aggressive acts substantially.
I don't have a solution to it but I hope there is one.
- simmerup 2y agoWonder if anyone can comment on how this played out in other periods where states could maintain large plausible deniability, like when we it was normal to hire privateers to interfere with other nations trade? Maybe if people move towards the actions with plausible deniability, it reduces the risk of major (attributable) action being taken
- holonsphere 2y agoCryptography + guerrila warfare go hand and hand. AI too if you'd believe it. Look to history. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1566253522001580 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S156625352...
- sorokod 2y agoPrivateers had to be officially sanctioned by a state (e.g. letter of marque). Don't think that plausible deniability was an expected benefit.