Shrike
1hr ago
"You can't be a vigilante."
Well...yeah. You're not supposed to be a vigilante. If you're allowed to do that stuff you're definitionally not a vigilante.
Shrike
1hr ago
For obvious reasons "well I needed to break the law to achieve the greater good" is a massive slippery slope. I have an easier time believing that the claim is genuine if the person making it is willing to face the music afterwards, and it puts some sandpaper on the slide, too.
Shrike
1hr ago
Also, lynching people is wrong even if they did do something that deserved the death penalty. It deprives the lynched of due process, it is true, but it also deprives the injured of having their injury validated and redressed. Lynchings forever throw doubt on the validity of the victim's injury.
I will entertain arguments for vigilante justice in a circumstances where there is no lawful way to achieve redress but that wasn't the case with Till (and really the vast majority of vigilante justice) so there's no point in reaching that argument at all.
Shrike
1hr ago
I think I would reserve the term 'AI' for something that's genuinely intelligent.
I think it's fair to term "intelligence" as "the capability to solve problems" - which lets us speak meaningfully about objects with even a very small modicum of "intelligence" on a certain axis - things can be "smart" in some senses without that generalizing. For instance, I think I can reasonably say "the LRASM is more intelligent than a Harpoon," because the LRASM is better at solving the problem (correctly identifying a target ship) than the Harpoon is.
LLMs certainly can solve problems, and thus while they are not intelligent and self-aware in the way that humans are I think it is fair to call them artificial intelligence. "Artificial" doesn't just mean "constructed," it also suggests a replacement - just like when you get an artificial leg. When a naval aviator launches an LRASM, its judgment replaces his in the final stages of the combat engagement. I ask an LLM to vibe-code for me, it is replacing my judgment. An artificial leg does not need to be a real leg, or as good as a real leg, to be an artificial leg, it needs to serve the same purpose as a leg.
I do agree, though, that it is helpful to say "LLM" in part because there are plenty of artificial intelligence models that are not large language models, and it is helpful to disambiguate.
3D printing is mostly a hobby technology, isn't it?
Depends on how you define "mostly." Possible most people doing 3D printing are hobbyists. But it's being used for stuff that's pretty serious (buildings, guns, boats).
At any rate, the best case scenario here is, what, that you can use an LLM or similar system to help produce models for 3D printing?
I think the best case scenario is that you could send your LLM product specifications and it would churn out a product for you. I am skeptical that the best unreleased frontier models could do this for something as simple as a microwave right now. But I could see them being capable of it in the future, particularly if you conceptualize the LLM as being used as a go-between or manager, not the actual design model itself. Walk in to your manufacturing complex one evening and say "I need a light attack aircraft, two-seater, range 500nm unrefueled, payload of no less than 2000 pounds, compatible with our preexisting parts and weapons stockpile and standing technical specifications" and then go to sleep, while the LLMs spend all night working on the design. This could work because the LLM is not trying to create the aircraft de novo. Rather it's building the aircraft in a computer design software that knows the parameters of the facility and the "parts list" and the other relevant technical requirements. It is guarded against hallucination because the tools it is using serve as an external source of truth that will validate its designs. Imagine it as the difference between trying to build a house with a set of LEGO bricks and trying to figure out how to build a house from scratch.
I would guess that an LLM could do something like that in, say, Flyout today. Now, there is a long list of reasons why Flyout is not real life, and thus I want to stress I am talking about a best case scenario that I think it plausible enough with enough development that it warrants consideration. I am not necessarily making a firm prediction.
Manipulating language is one thing, but we still very much struggle to build robots capable of interacting with material reality.
I think this misunderstands how this words. Today, right now, you can use Blender to create a design to 3D print. And today, right now, LLMs can design 3D objects in Blender. So the LLM-to-physical-world pipeline that matters already exists, it just remains to be seen if it can handle anything more complicated than novelty coat hangers and such. I think this ability is actually much more relevant to scaling up manufacturing than robotic humanoids and thus all of the problems we're still having with things like computer vision and mobility are largely irrelevant.
Shrike
2hr ago
I think this is right, but they pretty obviously increase electrical load pretty dramatically, and providing their own power just seems smart, both to preempt criticism and to secure a long-term supply that isn't reliant on market fluctuation. Plus, it's more secure.
I'd also be want to look very closely into how they planned to acquire their water if they were asking to build one near me, not because I think water disappears when it evaporates, but because we happen to have preexisting water management problems in my area and a massive open-cycle facility could be expected to make those worse. Obviously that's not going to be a universal problem, but it is a real one in some places.
Shrike
2hr ago
I don't actually think you want general-purpose robots, though. What you need is a series of frameworks within which robots can cut, weld, print, fasten, and manipulate objects. These frameworks should go from small to very, very large. The small ones are used to make microwaves and toaster ovens, the medium-sized ones to make cars and airplanes, large (mobile) ones to make houses, and the giant ones to make ships.
General purpose robots are tempting because they don't require replacing preexisting architecture but the truth is that you shouldn't want to retain preexisting architecture. General purpose robots intended to be a 1:1 replacement for humans won't build things much faster than humans (although you can run them on a double shift) and, worse, you'll still need to change up your infrastructure every time you need to make a specific model. If you get a general-purpose framework then changing your production line becomes largely a matter of software redesign.
This is massively significant because it brings down the cost of technological improvement, experimentation, and customization. It also makes industry dual-use again. During World War Two, factories that could make a car or refrigerator were quickly pressed into making tanks and airplanes. We cannot do that today because modern tanks and airplanes are extremely bespoke pieces of equipment. We need manufacturing that is capable of doing that again.
Shrike
12hr ago
This is closer to what I am getting at.
However I am not sure it will stay this way. Using LLMs [and other AI: LLMs may not be the best model to actually accomplish this, and at best they are probably only part of the puzzle] to do object manipulation will likely become a thing. CAD is already real, 3D printing/cutting is already real, throwing LLMs into the mix comes with real risks but also real upsides.
Everyone is very enamored of software, but robots building houses, if possible (and I expect it will be) will probably be where the money is actually at. I think that AI companies have over-focused on using AIs to write software (although, to be fair, it's the lowest hanging fruit) to the detriment of pushing more mundane but vastly more important and, over the long term, remunerative physical labor.
Shrike
12hr ago
It wouldn't occur to them to build or rebuild the town in which they locate the data center.
I might be being unfair, as I have not been tracking this closely, but it doesn't even seem to occur to them to hire local. Sure, datacenters only create a few jobs, but you still need landscaping, grounds, maintenance, security, and all of those plus ground-level IT work can probably be had by hiring a local management company or contractors. And you can make it very clear you intend to do this by getting them all on conditional contracts or just asking them their prices. Starting with "I will hire you as soon as the city council makes up their mind" rather than waiting to see what the city council decides to do is the sort of thing that changes the dynamics in your favor.
Shrike
14hr ago
Yeah, I think it's quite possible that Anthropic and or (especially?) OpenAI have over-leveraged themselves and suffer some horrible fate and possibly derail the economy, but I doubt AI will go away, even if its pace of improvement levels off. I think the worst-case scenario is it becomes a niche for hobbyists and cybersecurity types, like Linux or something.
I think @OliveTapenade is wrong inasmuch as coding and cybersecurity is not "niche" but correct inasmuch as software is something like 5% of the US economy and people who are inside of the AI [information] bubble don't realize that not everything is computer.
Shrike
14hr ago
I don't think you're correct in this case. If SMR tech was good enough that the above could be economically promised, I think it would be very effective. Cash talks. I live in the sort of place that people would like to build a data center and I know how they think and it's not particularly hard or expensive (in the big scheme of things) to countersignal those things you are talking about.
I don't bet but I actually would put skin in the game on this one, if you're a data center constructor frustrated by local sentiment in a rural area in the United States and you want help with PR, my DMs are open.
Shrike
14hr ago
I think often companies would do much better in the long run if they embraced a pro-community pro-public attitude, by which I mean tangible things that benefited the community they happen to be in and reliable, steady employment, not giving an employee match to random nonprofits.
Shrike
14hr ago
I suspect that there are places that would be perfectly happy to have SMRs. I doubt opposition is equally distributed.
Shrike
14hr ago
recall that the current reality is that data centers create a great deal of additional demand for electricity, which raises prices.
Precisely, that's why I think flipping the script and making each data center a net electricity producer would be such good PR (and also just generally a good thing.)
Shrike
17hr ago
Building on some observations I've seen made elsewhere (that data center/AI types need to learn how to earn loyalty in local communities), I think that AI datacenters would have people clamoring for them if their argument was as follows:
- We need to build a datacenter somewhere in your rural community. It will be out of the way where no one will see it.
- We need to power this datacenter, which consumes enough electrical power for about 250,000 homes. We are going to build our own nuclear reactor to do so. It will also be out of the way where no one will see it.
- Our nuclear power plant produces enough power for 300,000 homes.
- That means we will have excess power we will need to sell off, and we're willing to lock in a below-market price for 30 years if you let us break ground in two weeks
Unfortunately I'm not sure that the nascent small modular reactor pipeline is robust enough to make such an offer economical yet.
Shrike
18hr ago
Is Vance not knowing Trump's position supposed to make him look competent?
No it's supposed to make Vance look like he was always opposed to unpopular Trump policies.
(No idea if that story was astroturfed or not but generally I think people are getting the impression Vance opposed the Iran war. Maybe it's not 4D chess but if it isn't maybe it should be.)
The idea that Republicans are going to suddenly, en masse, turn on Trump in 2028 is ludicrous, and the idea that voters would buy a last-minute face turn is even more ludicrous.
Members of both parties do this sort of thing all the time (Kamala accusing Biden of being racist and then becoming his running mate, for example, or J.D. Vance and his past relationship to Trump). They won't say anything until they're in the primaries, or maybe the general and then perhaps Vance will say "he advised against the war from the beginning, supported the president out of a sense of duty, but has come to the conclusion that the costs it's borne on Americans mean it's no longer defensible" or whatever. And he'll be able to wave the Politico page to show that he didn't just make that up after winning the primary.
Shrike
1d ago
Very interesting, thanks.
What jet engines does Northrop Grumman make? I thought that in the States GE and P&W had the engine market pretty locked down for higher-end engines, I guess with Rolls-Royce still being a player in the civilian market (of course I'm probably embarrassing myself by missing someone super obvious!)
Shrike
2d ago
Yeah that's...fair. I also think I've pushed back on some of your arguments before which might have given you the impression that I am an Iranian triumphalist but I spend the other half of my time on here arguing against those guys.
Shrike
2d ago
I'd expect the US would welcome either one as a chance to further degrade IRGC capability
No man, you don't understand, the US historically does extremely poorly at destroying armored and mechanized formations that enter Kuwait from Iraq with coordinated precision air strikes! Iran is going to roll all the way through Saudi Arabia like a knife cutting through hot butter and link up with the freedom fighters in Yemen!
Shrike
2d ago
Someone in a different comment thread thinks Iran could invade Kuwait.
If you're talking about me, to set the record straight (strait?), I certainly think Iran could attempt to invade Kuwait, if they wanted to, as a treat. But I wouldn't use my post as an example of uh Iranian triumphalism. I think it would likely be an absolute slaughter.
Shrike
2d ago
Thus, it feels like it should be doable with AWACS, EW from aircraft and ships coupled with loitering mentions over the UAE for very effective suppression long-term.
I at least partially agree with your overall conclusion (that the US has a lot of capability to achieve persistent monitoring of the area near Iran's coastline and strike attacks directed from this location) but I have some quibbles with the reasoning you use to get there.
The USSR/Russia has been a C-tier military since at least the mid-80s
I don't think so, except maybe in terms of personnel (although arguably that's the most important part of a military, but I think that claims that NATO is orders of magnitude better than Russia in troop proficiency, particularly in ground combat, are exaggerated). Prior to the invasion of Ukraine, I would argue that their military was as good as or better than "the EU military" if you're looking at kit and capabilities.
EA-18 Growlers, destroyer based system should offer almost complete suppression of remote drone operation.
I think this depends on the system being used. I don't think Growlers can interfere with a satellite uplink system unless they are in a very specific geographic location relative to the drone. And (to your point about striking fixed targets) drones using only GPS or other navigation satellites to navigate might not be jammed even if the US has the capability because the US also uses GPS to navigate and/or doesn't want to jam foreign satellite constellations.
I also don't think Growlers are going to run broad-spectrum jamming based on "someone doing something out there." If you're controlling a drone via a mobile cell network, for example, you're not necessarily going to ping as the hostile communications node you are. So there are a lot of ways to get around US EW spectrum suppression.
AWACS should be able to spot drones almost immediately upon launch.
I'd suggest this is a bit oversimplified. The US moving a bunch of E-2s in theater suggests to me that the E-3 was having a hard time picking up Iranian "one way drones" (cruise missiles), and they assessed the newer AESA radars would be better able to pick them up. Airborne radars have a hard time picking up low-flying small aircraft, particularly at range and there's a risk that the return of a drone will fall under their speed or size gates. Also, keeping an AWACS on station perpetually over each target point is a major commitment.
The US Navy released a pretty good report on the Gettysburg friendly-fire incident that isn't about AWACS per se but it gets into how even AEGIS destroyers with their high-end radars have trouble in certain radar environments. Unironically recommended reading, really fascinating stuff that illuminates what those sort of operations look like on the inside.
Shrike
2d ago
No, I would not bet on Iran invading Kuwait on the strength of "trust me bro" Twitter...but the idea seemed darkly funny to me.
Shrike
2d ago
That doesn't seem to go the other way, though, does it? Solid rockets in particular seem much simpler than jet engine design, based on how quickly they've proliferated among nations not notable for jet engine design, although perhaps comparing a simple ballistic rocket to a turbofan isn't the right way to think about it, and I should be comparing a solid rocket to a turbojet instead.
I'm also not familiar with any Western companies that do both on the cutting edge, although maybe that's just because specialization matters for the extra last mile, and any Western company could make a rocket 90% as good as a Western rocket manufacturing plant and vice versa. Or maybe I'm missing some examples?
Shrike
2d ago
They have two options: surrender, or not.
You left out the third option which is, uh, invade Kuwait?
Shrike
2d ago
It seems implausible in the extreme that China will find it hard to scale up the production of rocket engines (after all, they do make more WS-15s than F135s now, judging by J-20 vs F35 commission rate)
Why are you suggesting that Chinese production of jet engines is a good indicator of their ability to build rocket engines?
I don't particularly find it incredible that China would be able to scale rocket engines but those are very different things.
I am not familiar with any such laws, certainly not in any jurisdiction I am likely to be in. If I were to be punished for such an act by the state, it is true that I should not be punished, because my action would be both morally and legally permissible.
I do agree with criticisms about laws restricting the right to self defense full stop (never seen any that condition it on the color of the attacker) but I don't think self-defense is the same as vigilante justice, and conflating the two does the former harm. In fact, people opposed to self-defense frequently conflate the two, arguing that someone injured or killed while doing an unlawful activity did not deserve the criminal penalty of death. But that point is moot: they were not (generally speaking) harmed because the person defending themselves decided to act as judge, jury, and executioner, but because the person acting in self-defense was taking steps deemed necessary to self-preservation.
More options
Context Copy link