4 ms·

I'm guessing this will be a somewhat controversial view here, but I think this is net good. The world is more turbulent than at any other time in my life, there

I'm guessing this will be a somewhat controversial view here, but I think this is net good. The world is more turbulent than at any other time in my life, there is war in Europe, and the U.S. needs every advantage it can get to improve its defense. Companies like Google, OpenAI, Microsoft, can and should be working with the government on defense projects -- I would much rather the Department of Defense have access to the best tools from the private sector than depend on some legacy prime contractor that doesn't have any real tech capabilities.

croes 2y ago
> the U.S. needs every advantage it can get to improve its defense That’s one of the reasons for the turbulent times. Let’s face the truth, most of the defense can easily be used for offense and given the state of online security every progress gets into the wrong hands. Maybe it’s time to pause to make it more difficult for those wrong hands.
- atlasunshrugged 2y ago
  I guess you could put that on the U.S.'s plate and no doubt America has caused many issues around the world, but I think in generally its a good actor. Biggest conflicts today: Ukraine -- I would squarely put this on Russia, nothing to do with the U.S.; Sudan -- Maybe lack of knowledge, but I don't think it's fair to place much responsibility on the U.S. (esp relative to other actors); ditto DRC/Rwanda Yes, many defensive uses of technologies can be used for offense. When I say defense, I also include offense there as I don't believe you can just have a defensive posture alone to maintain one's defense, you need deterrence too. Personally I'm quite happy to see many in Silicon Valley embrace defense-tech and build missiles (ex. recent YC co), munitions, and dual-use tech. The world is a scary and dangerous place, and awful people will take advantage of the weakness of others if they can. Maybe I'm biased because I spent a lot of time in Eastern Europe and Ukraine, but I much prefer the U.S. with all our faults to another actor like China or Russia being dominant
  - croes 2y ago
    I‘m not talking about good and bad but about naive. „Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.“ Propaganda and disinformation were problems before the AI hype but now it got worse. In the race for AGI they ignored the risks and didn‘t think of useful counter measures. It’s easier to spread lies with AI than to spread the truth. We enter dark aged where most people can’t distinguish fake from real because the faked became so convincing. Audio, photo and video lost their evidential value.
  - aucisson_masque 2y ago
    > but I think in generally its a good actor. There are many 'interesting' event that happened because of the invasion of irak, looking for weapon of mass destruction that never existed. This led to the destabilization of the entire middle east, several war and ISIS. One could say that the unconditional support to the israelian policy in middle east since 1950 also brought it's load of conflicts. The whole south America is fcked because of usa illegal intervention from WW2 to the end of cold war. And the list goes on and on. I mean it would be much faster to stay what good impact had the usa foreign policy on the world in the last 100 year.
    - skulk 2y ago
      > I mean it would be much faster to stay what good impact had the usa foreign policy on the world in the last 100 year. It could have wondrously good impacts, but that only matters in a moral framework where good actions morally cancel out bad ones.
  - TiredOfLife 2y ago
    US went out of their way to disarm Ukraine. Not only nukes, but also conventional weapons.
  - CapricornNoble 2y ago
    > Ukraine -- I would squarely put this on Russia, nothing to do with the U.S. Every kinetic reaction by Russia in Georgia and Ukraine is downstream of major destabilizing non-kinetic actions by the US. You don't think the US fomenting revolutions in Russia's near-abroad was in any way a contributing factor to Russian understanding of the strategic situation on its western border? [1] You don't think the US unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty[2], and then following that up with plans to put ABMs in Eastern Europe[3], were factors in the security stability of the region? You don't think that the US pushing to enlarge NATO without adjusting the CFE treaty to reflect the inclusion of new US allies had an impact? [4][5] It's long been known that the Russian military lacked the capacity for sustained offensive/expeditionary operations outside of its borders.[6][7] Until ~2014 it didn't even possess the force structure for peer warfare, as it had re-oriented its organization for counter-insurgency in the Caucasus. So what was driving US actions in Eastern Europe? This was a question US contrarians and politicians such as Pat Buchanan were asking as early as 1997. We've had almost 3 decades of American thinkers cautioning that pissing around in Russia's western underbelly would eventually trigger a catastrophic reaction[8], and here we are, with the Ukrainians paying the butcher's bill. In the absence of US actions, the kleptocrats in Moscow would have been quite content continuing to print money selling natural resources to European industry and then wasting their largess buying up European villas and sports teams. But the siloviki have deep-seated paranoia which isn't entirely baseless (Russia has eaten 3 devastating wars originating from its open western flanks in the past ~120 years). As a consequence the US has pissed away one of the greatest accomplishments of the Cold War: the Sino-Soviet Split. Our hamfisted attempts to kick Russia while it was down have now forced the two principle powers on the Eurasian landmass back into bed with each other. This is NOT how we win The Great Game. > Maybe I'm biased because I spent a lot of time in Eastern Europe and Ukraine, but I much prefer the U.S. with all our faults to another actor like China or Russia being dominant. It would help to lead with this context. My position is that our actions ENSURE that a hostile Eurasian power bloc will become dominant. We should have used far less stick to integrate Russia into the Western security structure, as well as simply engaged them without looking down our noses at them as a defeated has-been power (play to their ego as a Great Power). A US-friendly Russia is needed to over-extend China militarily. We need China to be forced into committing forces to the long Sino-Russian border, much as Ukraine must garrison its border with Belarus. We need to starve the PRC's industry of cheap natural resources. Now the China-Russia-Iran soft-alliance has the advantage of interior lines across the whole continent, and a super-charged Chinese industrial base fed by Siberia. Due to the tyranny of distance, this will be an near-impossible nut to crack for the US in a conflict. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa [2] https://www.armscontrol.org/events/2001-12/abm-treaty-withdrawal-neither-necessary-nor-prudent https://www.armscontrol.org/events/2001-12/abm-treaty-withdr... [3] https://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/en/analyses/americas-abm-shield-in-europe-and-russias-response-ari/ https://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/en/analyses/americas-abm... [4] https://www.sipri.org/yearbook/2003/17 https://www.sipri.org/yearbook/2003/17 [5] https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997-08/features/nato-and-russian-approaches-adapting-cfe-treaty https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997-08/features/nato-and-ru... [6] https://warontherocks.com/2021/11/feeding-the-bear-a-closer-look-at-russian-army-logistics/ https://warontherocks.com/2021/11/feeding-the-bear-a-closer-... [7] https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR2500/RR2563/RAND_RR2563.pdf https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/... [8] https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html
- stickfigure 2y ago
  Just how do you propose to remove those tools from Putin's, Xi's, Khomeini's, or Kim Jong-Un's hands?
  - croes 2y ago
    For removal it’s too late, but maybe slowing down is still possible. There is no advancement that won‘t end up in the wrong hands and most likely it will be a leak from an US company.
    - Sabinus 2y ago
      So the US needs to develop AI faster than the dictators to keep ahead of them, but not so fast they leak advancements that accelerate the dictators AI?
      - croes 2y ago
        There is no keep being ahead. If one side progresses the other side gets access to it too. Too many people involved and too little security to keep it secret.
colonCapitalDee 2y ago
Agreed. Any other answer is just burying your head in the sand. Our adversaries are forging ahead: China plans to integrate AI into every level of its military, and Russia is getting a crash course on drone warfare in Ukraine. You can build a FPV drone with Chinese parts and the warhead scavenged from an RPG for about $500 [1]. Every month, tens of thousands of these drones fly on Ukrainian battlefields and kill thousands of people. This is happening whether we like it or not; the train is leaving the station and we can either get on board or be left behind. [1] https://www.kyivpost.com/post/44112 https://www.kyivpost.com/post/44112

croes 2y ago

> the U.S. needs every advantage it can get to improve its defense That’s one of the reasons for the turbulent times. Let’s face the truth, most of the defense can easily be used for offense and given the state of online security every progress gets into the wrong hands. Maybe it’s time to pause to make it more difficult for those wrong hands.

atlasunshrugged 2y ago
I guess you could put that on the U.S.'s plate and no doubt America has caused many issues around the world, but I think in generally its a good actor. Biggest conflicts today: Ukraine -- I would squarely put this on Russia, nothing to do with the U.S.; Sudan -- Maybe lack of knowledge, but I don't think it's fair to place much responsibility on the U.S. (esp relative to other actors); ditto DRC/Rwanda Yes, many defensive uses of technologies can be used for offense. When I say defense, I also include offense there as I don't believe you can just have a defensive posture alone to maintain one's defense, you need deterrence too. Personally I'm quite happy to see many in Silicon Valley embrace defense-tech and build missiles (ex. recent YC co), munitions, and dual-use tech. The world is a scary and dangerous place, and awful people will take advantage of the weakness of others if they can. Maybe I'm biased because I spent a lot of time in Eastern Europe and Ukraine, but I much prefer the U.S. with all our faults to another actor like China or Russia being dominant
- croes 2y ago
  I‘m not talking about good and bad but about naive. „Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.“ Propaganda and disinformation were problems before the AI hype but now it got worse. In the race for AGI they ignored the risks and didn‘t think of useful counter measures. It’s easier to spread lies with AI than to spread the truth. We enter dark aged where most people can’t distinguish fake from real because the faked became so convincing. Audio, photo and video lost their evidential value.
- aucisson_masque 2y ago
  > but I think in generally its a good actor. There are many 'interesting' event that happened because of the invasion of irak, looking for weapon of mass destruction that never existed. This led to the destabilization of the entire middle east, several war and ISIS. One could say that the unconditional support to the israelian policy in middle east since 1950 also brought it's load of conflicts. The whole south America is fcked because of usa illegal intervention from WW2 to the end of cold war. And the list goes on and on. I mean it would be much faster to stay what good impact had the usa foreign policy on the world in the last 100 year.
  - skulk 2y ago
    > I mean it would be much faster to stay what good impact had the usa foreign policy on the world in the last 100 year. It could have wondrously good impacts, but that only matters in a moral framework where good actions morally cancel out bad ones.
- TiredOfLife 2y ago
  US went out of their way to disarm Ukraine. Not only nukes, but also conventional weapons.
- CapricornNoble 2y ago
  > Ukraine -- I would squarely put this on Russia, nothing to do with the U.S. Every kinetic reaction by Russia in Georgia and Ukraine is downstream of major destabilizing non-kinetic actions by the US. You don't think the US fomenting revolutions in Russia's near-abroad was in any way a contributing factor to Russian understanding of the strategic situation on its western border? [1] You don't think the US unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty[2], and then following that up with plans to put ABMs in Eastern Europe[3], were factors in the security stability of the region? You don't think that the US pushing to enlarge NATO without adjusting the CFE treaty to reflect the inclusion of new US allies had an impact? [4][5] It's long been known that the Russian military lacked the capacity for sustained offensive/expeditionary operations outside of its borders.[6][7] Until ~2014 it didn't even possess the force structure for peer warfare, as it had re-oriented its organization for counter-insurgency in the Caucasus. So what was driving US actions in Eastern Europe? This was a question US contrarians and politicians such as Pat Buchanan were asking as early as 1997. We've had almost 3 decades of American thinkers cautioning that pissing around in Russia's western underbelly would eventually trigger a catastrophic reaction[8], and here we are, with the Ukrainians paying the butcher's bill. In the absence of US actions, the kleptocrats in Moscow would have been quite content continuing to print money selling natural resources to European industry and then wasting their largess buying up European villas and sports teams. But the siloviki have deep-seated paranoia which isn't entirely baseless (Russia has eaten 3 devastating wars originating from its open western flanks in the past ~120 years). As a consequence the US has pissed away one of the greatest accomplishments of the Cold War: the Sino-Soviet Split. Our hamfisted attempts to kick Russia while it was down have now forced the two principle powers on the Eurasian landmass back into bed with each other. This is NOT how we win The Great Game. > Maybe I'm biased because I spent a lot of time in Eastern Europe and Ukraine, but I much prefer the U.S. with all our faults to another actor like China or Russia being dominant. It would help to lead with this context. My position is that our actions ENSURE that a hostile Eurasian power bloc will become dominant. We should have used far less stick to integrate Russia into the Western security structure, as well as simply engaged them without looking down our noses at them as a defeated has-been power (play to their ego as a Great Power). A US-friendly Russia is needed to over-extend China militarily. We need China to be forced into committing forces to the long Sino-Russian border, much as Ukraine must garrison its border with Belarus. We need to starve the PRC's industry of cheap natural resources. Now the China-Russia-Iran soft-alliance has the advantage of interior lines across the whole continent, and a super-charged Chinese industrial base fed by Siberia. Due to the tyranny of distance, this will be an near-impossible nut to crack for the US in a conflict. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa [2] https://www.armscontrol.org/events/2001-12/abm-treaty-withdrawal-neither-necessary-nor-prudent https://www.armscontrol.org/events/2001-12/abm-treaty-withdr... [3] https://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/en/analyses/americas-abm-shield-in-europe-and-russias-response-ari/ https://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/en/analyses/americas-abm... [4] https://www.sipri.org/yearbook/2003/17 https://www.sipri.org/yearbook/2003/17 [5] https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997-08/features/nato-and-russian-approaches-adapting-cfe-treaty https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997-08/features/nato-and-ru... [6] https://warontherocks.com/2021/11/feeding-the-bear-a-closer-look-at-russian-army-logistics/ https://warontherocks.com/2021/11/feeding-the-bear-a-closer-... [7] https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR2500/RR2563/RAND_RR2563.pdf https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/... [8] https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html
stickfigure 2y ago
Just how do you propose to remove those tools from Putin's, Xi's, Khomeini's, or Kim Jong-Un's hands?
- croes 2y ago
  For removal it’s too late, but maybe slowing down is still possible. There is no advancement that won‘t end up in the wrong hands and most likely it will be a leak from an US company.
  - Sabinus 2y ago
    So the US needs to develop AI faster than the dictators to keep ahead of them, but not so fast they leak advancements that accelerate the dictators AI?
    - croes 2y ago
      There is no keep being ahead. If one side progresses the other side gets access to it too. Too many people involved and too little security to keep it secret.

colonCapitalDee 2y ago

Agreed. Any other answer is just burying your head in the sand. Our adversaries are forging ahead: China plans to integrate AI into every level of its military, and Russia is getting a crash course on drone warfare in Ukraine. You can build a FPV drone with Chinese parts and the warhead scavenged from an RPG for about $500 [1]. Every month, tens of thousands of these drones fly on Ukrainian battlefields and kill thousands of people. This is happening whether we like it or not; the train is leaving the station and we can either get on board or be left behind. [1] https://www.kyivpost.com/post/44112 https://www.kyivpost.com/post/44112