5 ms·

Deadly and Imminent; The Pentagon's Mad Dash for Silicon Valley's AI Weapons

79 points by cempaka 2y ago

whatshisface 2y ago
So I was just thinking, and hear me out, since the budget is all coming from us why can't it be spent on something we like or want?
- riehwvfbk 2y ago
  For the same reason that sheep don't decide what kind of sweater gets made from their wool.
  - whatshisface 2y ago
    I don't think that's a productive attitude. If you were someone's manager, and they had learned that they could get away with a lot under you, there's only so much time you could spend complaining about human nature. Really, it was your responsibility from the beginning. We're like those restaurant owners from Kitchen Nightmares who show up once a week to talk to our own bartender and don't know that the walk-in fridge is 75 degrees F and that there's raw chicken on the ground.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - Jtsummers 2y ago
      > We're like those restaurant owners from Kitchen Nightmares who show up once a week to talk to our own bartender and don't know that the walk-in fridge is 75 degrees F and that there's raw chicken on the ground. Who's "we" in this sentence? Plenty of us have known about the "raw chicken on the ground" for years and actively try to do something about it. A better question for this discussion is why have you been looking away for so long, and what are you going to do now that you see the problem?
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - whatshisface 2y ago
        I don't know the answer to that question generally, but that's the only sense that is productive.
    - Rury 2y ago
      Well, that's sort of the thing you're missing... the vast majority of people are not the "manager" or "owner" in this situation. But if they were to take responsibility, it would mean they'd have to replace the current managers who are. So why doesn't that happen? Simply because, and this may be shocking, but some people don't want that to happen, and rather likes how the current money is being spent, and likes the current managers. The core of politics (and its problems) is a matter of disagreements, not incompetence.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - whatshisface 2y ago
        We already have the responsibility for letting this stuff go on, that's the problem. I am also very skeptical that anywhere near a majority would support it if they were aware of it and understood.
        Rury 2y ago
        Even if the majority of people are in agreement of "we dislike the current people running the government", you still have the problem of agreeing on what to do about it. Some people may want to overthrow current government norms and democracy. Other people don't ever want that, and want to uphold formal structures as is. Some people want to replace leader A with leader B, but others want leader C. Some people want abortion rights, others don't want others to even have that right. Some think topic X is a priority issue, whereas Y is a non-issue, and on and on... All said, politics is always ultimately a matter of disagreement. But you're right in that, if we only could be in complete agreement, things would be resolved rather quickly as there would be no opposition.
        whatshisface 2y ago
        Making it about the people is how you get disagreement out of agreement. :-)
- 1659447091 2y ago
  Technically it is. If you don't like what the money is spent on, "write to your representative"[0] But unless you can start a movement that gets large groups of people to agree about the same things, probably won't get too far. Also, vote. Or better yet, run for your areas house seat and make changes from the inside, if you have the patience [0] https://www.house.gov/representatives https://www.house.gov/representatives
  - whatshisface 2y ago
    While pretty much everybody would say no to this if you explained it to them, between nobody wanting to spend a lot of time keeping track of everything that's going on, and the stewards of res publica not exactly feeling excited about the prospects of closer attention, the connection between the legitimate will of the public and the actions at the other end of the chain of command can get pretty tenuous.
    - taurknaut 2y ago
      > the connection between the legitimate will of the public and the actions at the other end of the chain of command can get pretty tenuous. This is exactly why I can't imagine an open internet was ever going to survive.
- rasz 2y ago
  How much do you like or want not being at war? Because si vis pacem, para bellum.
- mft_ 2y ago
  The current model of “democracy” in the US —and indeed in most countries— is very arm’s length. In countries with a model closer to direct democracy, Switzerland being the best example I know of, it might be possible to hold a vote about a specific policy (e.g. we don’t want our army to develop/use autonomous AI hunter-killer drones) but micromanagement of multiple policy decisions is probably both difficult and maybe unwise. Defence topics might be especially challenging given the background knowledge required to make a rational decision may often be classified and/or otherwise unavailable to the general public.
- taurknaut 2y ago
  You'd better be happy with the choices you're offered or you're actually a fascist, whether you knew it already or not.
Animats 2y ago
The Replicator program was supposed to result in cheaper drones using commercial-grade technology, but the price isn't coming down to Ukraine/Russia levels and it's taking too long.[1] If "AI" got into the Replicator program, someone is gold-plating it. It's supposed to be about US$500 to US$1000 drones. What's coming out are US$20,000 drones. [1] https://www.economist.com/united-states/2025/01/05/the-us-army-needs-less-good-cheaper-drones-to-compete https://www.economist.com/united-states/2025/01/05/the-us-ar...
- throwup238 2y ago
  Between single use aluminum/lithium-air batteries, a proper sensor suite, and the performance of that F1 follow drone I think a proper $20,000 drone would be much more useful for the US assuming the costs are under control. They could conceivably get significantly better range than artillery and use AI (hand waving a lot here) for target selection to make up for the smaller warhead and 4x cost. With the right combination of hardware and software, drones could become an incredible general purpose weapons including anti-tank, loitering and mine-like anti-personnel, RF missile, and so on. $500-1000 drones might be useful in saturation attacks but most of that cost will be eaten up by the warhead. The drones won’t be very useful unless they’re hunter seeker style with small charges and a lot of intelligence (just like the $20k drone) for target selection. I don’t think US doctrine can support them otherwise (the vehicle to deploy them will cost 1000-10000x anyway). These classes of drones work much better for a country like Ukraine in a total war on home soil.
  - trhway 2y ago
    >might be useful in saturation attacks with deployment of cheap point defense systems - like cheap radar (Starlink phased array is $500 or so) plus shotgun (Russians currently do "soldier with shotgun") - on every tank, IFV, truck, etc. only stealth (not an option in those price ranges really) or saturation will be the way to go. Single $20K drone would be just wasted by such point defense. To the point defense add automated predator/interceptor drones patrolling against the attack drones. Thus saturation with large autonomous hives with drones of various types - coordinators, predators, and actual attack drones.
mattigames 2y ago
[flagged]
- cycrutchfield 2y ago
  This is one of those times where you keep those thoughts to yourself, bud.
  - mattigames 2y ago
    I give it 3 years before it becomes a reality, you will remember my comment first time it happens. But this kind of answers make me wonder, what do you exactly think war is?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - mattigames 2y ago
      Like, I understand your attachment to the concept of civilization to grasp why my comment was flagged, but its such an easy way out that I still don't know where the community in general stands, not even the flaggers, like do you know that among CIA crimes rape would be pretty down the list if we sorted by heinousness? Or you know that but somehow think talking about such issue only causes more harm over whatever damage its going to do regardless of any discussion about it? (e.g. normalization or something alike). Or as I fear its just an emotional response...
      - cycrutchfield 2y ago
        I don’t want to hear about your sexual fantasies, my dude.
        mattigames 2y ago
        What? I'm talking about a real problem in war and you think I'm talking about sexual fantasies? You are something else, you can Google the amount of raping in the Israel Palestine genocide and see that it's quite a real problem.
chrisco255 2y ago
The U.S. does not have a choice not to develop advanced drone technology. It is an asymmetric weapon in terms of costs to damage dealt. The enemies already have it. It's likely that the only counter to a drone swarm attack is a drone swarm defense.
- whatshisface 2y ago
  That's really a superficial issue here, because once the program budget has grown to fighter jet levels the asymmetric cost discussion is over and all that's left is taking a potentially culpable human being out of the equation, and the likely more influential aspect of military purchasers wanting to be impressed by vendors just like any other purchasers anywhere else.
  - chrisco255 2y ago
    Drones don't need to be anywhere near the size of fighter jets to carry the same payload. But meanwhile a single fighter jet is going to do nothing against a swarm of 100 drones that are 1/10th the size and 1/100th the cost since there's no need to train a pilot for 10 years and they can forego many safety systems designed for human pilots. Then there's a whole range of medium to low speed drones which again just overwhelm an infantry force. Or attach C4 and fly them kamikaze into ships. How do you guarantee you can shoot down 1000 drones in time when only one of them needs to succeed to do massive damage.
    - defrost 2y ago
      > How do you guarantee you can shoot down 1000 drones in time when only one of them needs to succeed to do massive damage. A million rounds a minute takes out a drone swarm pretty well, a package of C4 alone will deflect off warship grade armour ... Drones and drone swarms are an issue, sure, but less so in some scenarios. * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7faoyoxMF8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7faoyoxMF8 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKlnMwuCZso https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKlnMwuCZso
      - 2y ago
AlotOfReading 2y ago
Defense contractors used to be the stodgy old companies that most in the tech industry looked down on. It's been interesting to watch the slow shift in the valley towards widespread acceptance and even wholehearted support for the military industrial complex.
- whatshisface 2y ago
  Defense companies are documentation-driven and procedure-driven ("stodgy") because they are government contractors, and there have actually always been a lot of them in SV. There is also a precedent in the tech company idea as a sales and marketing tool aimed at the government - in Theranos of all examples.
  - Terr_ 2y ago
    > they are government contractors It's not just a kind of subculture though, there are practical reasons: "Defense" products have often meant large batches of durable complicated equipment (e.g. tanks, planes) where your clients plan to have them ready for service for the next X decades and really do require their own copies of good repair-manuals that a non-employee can use, as well as some confidence that the supply-chain is both secure now and can also continue to exist for those X decades. Even if all you're doing is providing the software for the Big Mech Suit, you can't dodge those requirements since it's part of the same set of product-needs. This is a stark contrast to, say, an "Uber for Cats on the Blockchain with AI" SaaS site the lives on ad-revenue and no end-user support.
    - whatshisface 2y ago
      They're not so great at providing the repair manuals this century, in fact a lot of the contracts say that only the contractor can repair the equipment. A lot of helicopter trips are made to aircraft carriers as a result.
      - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        It's pretty clear that we need not just a law but an actual constitutional amendment requiring them to go back to the old way.
ligamential 2y ago
I don't think it's a conspiracy theory to say: The Stargate Project will be the largest surveillance tool ever, it will be pointed squarely at the US population, and it will be abused in historically unprecedented ways.
- spencerflem 2y ago
  It is not. Genuinely the "best" use of AI, and why it was made by ad companies (surveillance companies)
throwaway173738 2y ago
I can’t wait for 2040 when these weapons make their way into the hands of the police in the US through the surplus programs that currently get them MRAPs.
ashoeafoot 2y ago
ukraines fpv drones supply a mountain of training data..
zkmon 2y ago
It's appalling how many people on these threads take pride on being an SME on these topics, without recognizing the real point. It is not a question for a drones SME. It's question for defining the meaning and purpose of human progress. We are creating a form of natural calamities and calling it progress. Drone swarms are calamities similar to earth quakes, tsunami or wild fire. If you have a swarm your enemy has it too. If you have a nuke, the enemy has it too. You might reason, well, even if we don't push for it, others would. Alright, then the only way to stop it is by natural balance. The balance would be achieved by devaluing the resources humans are after. Say there are too few humans remaining on earth, so that they don't care about owning stuff, country borders or money or security ...
ashoeafoot 2y ago
Imagine a planetwide human party in resistance to self extinction , that would be the worst terrorist organisation ever.

79 points by cempaka 2y ago

So I was just thinking, and hear me out, since the budget is all coming from us why can't it be spent on something we like or want?

riehwvfbk 2y ago
For the same reason that sheep don't decide what kind of sweater gets made from their wool.
- whatshisface 2y ago
  I don't think that's a productive attitude. If you were someone's manager, and they had learned that they could get away with a lot under you, there's only so much time you could spend complaining about human nature. Really, it was your responsibility from the beginning. We're like those restaurant owners from Kitchen Nightmares who show up once a week to talk to our own bartender and don't know that the walk-in fridge is 75 degrees F and that there's raw chicken on the ground.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - Jtsummers 2y ago
    > We're like those restaurant owners from Kitchen Nightmares who show up once a week to talk to our own bartender and don't know that the walk-in fridge is 75 degrees F and that there's raw chicken on the ground. Who's "we" in this sentence? Plenty of us have known about the "raw chicken on the ground" for years and actively try to do something about it. A better question for this discussion is why have you been looking away for so long, and what are you going to do now that you see the problem?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - whatshisface 2y ago
      I don't know the answer to that question generally, but that's the only sense that is productive.
  - Rury 2y ago
    Well, that's sort of the thing you're missing... the vast majority of people are not the "manager" or "owner" in this situation. But if they were to take responsibility, it would mean they'd have to replace the current managers who are. So why doesn't that happen? Simply because, and this may be shocking, but some people don't want that to happen, and rather likes how the current money is being spent, and likes the current managers. The core of politics (and its problems) is a matter of disagreements, not incompetence.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - whatshisface 2y ago
      We already have the responsibility for letting this stuff go on, that's the problem. I am also very skeptical that anywhere near a majority would support it if they were aware of it and understood.
      - Rury 2y ago
        Even if the majority of people are in agreement of "we dislike the current people running the government", you still have the problem of agreeing on what to do about it. Some people may want to overthrow current government norms and democracy. Other people don't ever want that, and want to uphold formal structures as is. Some people want to replace leader A with leader B, but others want leader C. Some people want abortion rights, others don't want others to even have that right. Some think topic X is a priority issue, whereas Y is a non-issue, and on and on... All said, politics is always ultimately a matter of disagreement. But you're right in that, if we only could be in complete agreement, things would be resolved rather quickly as there would be no opposition.
        whatshisface 2y ago
        Making it about the people is how you get disagreement out of agreement. :-)
1659447091 2y ago
Technically it is. If you don't like what the money is spent on, "write to your representative"[0] But unless you can start a movement that gets large groups of people to agree about the same things, probably won't get too far. Also, vote. Or better yet, run for your areas house seat and make changes from the inside, if you have the patience [0] https://www.house.gov/representatives https://www.house.gov/representatives
- whatshisface 2y ago
  While pretty much everybody would say no to this if you explained it to them, between nobody wanting to spend a lot of time keeping track of everything that's going on, and the stewards of res publica not exactly feeling excited about the prospects of closer attention, the connection between the legitimate will of the public and the actions at the other end of the chain of command can get pretty tenuous.
  - taurknaut 2y ago
    > the connection between the legitimate will of the public and the actions at the other end of the chain of command can get pretty tenuous. This is exactly why I can't imagine an open internet was ever going to survive.
rasz 2y ago
How much do you like or want not being at war? Because si vis pacem, para bellum.
mft_ 2y ago
The current model of “democracy” in the US —and indeed in most countries— is very arm’s length. In countries with a model closer to direct democracy, Switzerland being the best example I know of, it might be possible to hold a vote about a specific policy (e.g. we don’t want our army to develop/use autonomous AI hunter-killer drones) but micromanagement of multiple policy decisions is probably both difficult and maybe unwise. Defence topics might be especially challenging given the background knowledge required to make a rational decision may often be classified and/or otherwise unavailable to the general public.
taurknaut 2y ago
You'd better be happy with the choices you're offered or you're actually a fascist, whether you knew it already or not.

Animats 2y ago

The Replicator program was supposed to result in cheaper drones using commercial-grade technology, but the price isn't coming down to Ukraine/Russia levels and it's taking too long.[1] If "AI" got into the Replicator program, someone is gold-plating it. It's supposed to be about US$500 to US$1000 drones. What's coming out are US$20,000 drones. [1] https://www.economist.com/united-states/2025/01/05/the-us-army-needs-less-good-cheaper-drones-to-compete https://www.economist.com/united-states/2025/01/05/the-us-ar...

throwup238 2y ago
Between single use aluminum/lithium-air batteries, a proper sensor suite, and the performance of that F1 follow drone I think a proper $20,000 drone would be much more useful for the US assuming the costs are under control. They could conceivably get significantly better range than artillery and use AI (hand waving a lot here) for target selection to make up for the smaller warhead and 4x cost. With the right combination of hardware and software, drones could become an incredible general purpose weapons including anti-tank, loitering and mine-like anti-personnel, RF missile, and so on. $500-1000 drones might be useful in saturation attacks but most of that cost will be eaten up by the warhead. The drones won’t be very useful unless they’re hunter seeker style with small charges and a lot of intelligence (just like the $20k drone) for target selection. I don’t think US doctrine can support them otherwise (the vehicle to deploy them will cost 1000-10000x anyway). These classes of drones work much better for a country like Ukraine in a total war on home soil.
- trhway 2y ago
  >might be useful in saturation attacks with deployment of cheap point defense systems - like cheap radar (Starlink phased array is $500 or so) plus shotgun (Russians currently do "soldier with shotgun") - on every tank, IFV, truck, etc. only stealth (not an option in those price ranges really) or saturation will be the way to go. Single $20K drone would be just wasted by such point defense. To the point defense add automated predator/interceptor drones patrolling against the attack drones. Thus saturation with large autonomous hives with drones of various types - coordinators, predators, and actual attack drones.

mattigames 2y ago

[flagged]

cycrutchfield 2y ago
This is one of those times where you keep those thoughts to yourself, bud.
- mattigames 2y ago
  I give it 3 years before it becomes a reality, you will remember my comment first time it happens. But this kind of answers make me wonder, what do you exactly think war is?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - mattigames 2y ago
    Like, I understand your attachment to the concept of civilization to grasp why my comment was flagged, but its such an easy way out that I still don't know where the community in general stands, not even the flaggers, like do you know that among CIA crimes rape would be pretty down the list if we sorted by heinousness? Or you know that but somehow think talking about such issue only causes more harm over whatever damage its going to do regardless of any discussion about it? (e.g. normalization or something alike). Or as I fear its just an emotional response...
    - cycrutchfield 2y ago
      I don’t want to hear about your sexual fantasies, my dude.
      - mattigames 2y ago
        What? I'm talking about a real problem in war and you think I'm talking about sexual fantasies? You are something else, you can Google the amount of raping in the Israel Palestine genocide and see that it's quite a real problem.

chrisco255 2y ago

The U.S. does not have a choice not to develop advanced drone technology. It is an asymmetric weapon in terms of costs to damage dealt. The enemies already have it. It's likely that the only counter to a drone swarm attack is a drone swarm defense.

whatshisface 2y ago
That's really a superficial issue here, because once the program budget has grown to fighter jet levels the asymmetric cost discussion is over and all that's left is taking a potentially culpable human being out of the equation, and the likely more influential aspect of military purchasers wanting to be impressed by vendors just like any other purchasers anywhere else.
- chrisco255 2y ago
  Drones don't need to be anywhere near the size of fighter jets to carry the same payload. But meanwhile a single fighter jet is going to do nothing against a swarm of 100 drones that are 1/10th the size and 1/100th the cost since there's no need to train a pilot for 10 years and they can forego many safety systems designed for human pilots. Then there's a whole range of medium to low speed drones which again just overwhelm an infantry force. Or attach C4 and fly them kamikaze into ships. How do you guarantee you can shoot down 1000 drones in time when only one of them needs to succeed to do massive damage.
  - defrost 2y ago
    > How do you guarantee you can shoot down 1000 drones in time when only one of them needs to succeed to do massive damage. A million rounds a minute takes out a drone swarm pretty well, a package of C4 alone will deflect off warship grade armour ... Drones and drone swarms are an issue, sure, but less so in some scenarios. * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7faoyoxMF8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7faoyoxMF8 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKlnMwuCZso https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKlnMwuCZso
    - 2y ago

AlotOfReading 2y ago

Defense contractors used to be the stodgy old companies that most in the tech industry looked down on. It's been interesting to watch the slow shift in the valley towards widespread acceptance and even wholehearted support for the military industrial complex.

whatshisface 2y ago
Defense companies are documentation-driven and procedure-driven ("stodgy") because they are government contractors, and there have actually always been a lot of them in SV. There is also a precedent in the tech company idea as a sales and marketing tool aimed at the government - in Theranos of all examples.
- Terr_ 2y ago
  > they are government contractors It's not just a kind of subculture though, there are practical reasons: "Defense" products have often meant large batches of durable complicated equipment (e.g. tanks, planes) where your clients plan to have them ready for service for the next X decades and really do require their own copies of good repair-manuals that a non-employee can use, as well as some confidence that the supply-chain is both secure now and can also continue to exist for those X decades. Even if all you're doing is providing the software for the Big Mech Suit, you can't dodge those requirements since it's part of the same set of product-needs. This is a stark contrast to, say, an "Uber for Cats on the Blockchain with AI" SaaS site the lives on ad-revenue and no end-user support.
  - whatshisface 2y ago
    They're not so great at providing the repair manuals this century, in fact a lot of the contracts say that only the contractor can repair the equipment. A lot of helicopter trips are made to aircraft carriers as a result.
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      It's pretty clear that we need not just a law but an actual constitutional amendment requiring them to go back to the old way.

ligamential 2y ago

I don't think it's a conspiracy theory to say: The Stargate Project will be the largest surveillance tool ever, it will be pointed squarely at the US population, and it will be abused in historically unprecedented ways.

spencerflem 2y ago
It is not. Genuinely the "best" use of AI, and why it was made by ad companies (surveillance companies)

throwaway173738 2y ago

I can’t wait for 2040 when these weapons make their way into the hands of the police in the US through the surplus programs that currently get them MRAPs.

ashoeafoot 2y ago

ukraines fpv drones supply a mountain of training data..

zkmon 2y ago

It's appalling how many people on these threads take pride on being an SME on these topics, without recognizing the real point. It is not a question for a drones SME. It's question for defining the meaning and purpose of human progress. We are creating a form of natural calamities and calling it progress. Drone swarms are calamities similar to earth quakes, tsunami or wild fire. If you have a swarm your enemy has it too. If you have a nuke, the enemy has it too. You might reason, well, even if we don't push for it, others would. Alright, then the only way to stop it is by natural balance. The balance would be achieved by devaluing the resources humans are after. Say there are too few humans remaining on earth, so that they don't care about owning stuff, country borders or money or security ...

ashoeafoot 2y ago

Imagine a planetwide human party in resistance to self extinction , that would be the worst terrorist organisation ever.