This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I think all of this is more or less correct. (I don't think I saw you, specifically, as being particularly distressed about this, I was just reacting to a vibe.) I suppose to me AI is already in the military and there's no closing the barn door now. And I don't think it's dumb to bring AI into the fix.
I do think that an underrated danger is that AI is so good at seeing patterns that it could loop over to being easier to spoof than humans. There is of course the joke about spoofing Terminator with the grocery barcode, but if I wanted to mess up hostile AI image detection software, I would use very specific, distinctive (to AI, not necessarily to humans) camouflage patterns patterns on all of my vehicles for years, ensuring that hostile imagery models were trained to inseparably associate that with my forces - and then repaint every vehicle in wartime. That trick would never work on a human (although there are lots of tricks that do) but it might fool an AI.
My point here isn't that AI is dumb, but merely that it's just as easy to imagine ways they introduce more friction into warfare as remove friction. Moreoever, if intelligence apparatuses are defaulting to filtering all intelligence and data through a few AI models instead of many human minds, it means that a single blindspot or failing is likely to be systemwide, instead of many, many small blindspots scattered across different commands. And if there are hostile AI (or even just smart people) on both sides, they will figure out the patterns in hostile artificial intelligence programs and figure out how to exploit them. (I think the conclusion here is that intel agencies should take a belt-and-suspenders humans-and-AI approach, and developing multiple AI programs to assess intelligence and data might be a good idea.)
One of the things we've seen in Ukraine is that when countermeasures for a high-tech weapons system are developed, the weapons system loses a lot of value very quickly. (This isn't new - World War Two saw a rapid proliferation of new technologies that edged out older warfighting gear - but our development cycles seem longer than they were in the 1940s, which does pose a problem.) I suspect that in a future AI reliant war, we will see similar patterns: when a model becomes obsolete, it will fail catastrophically and operate at a dramatically reduced capacity until it is patched. (Since a lot of the relevant stuff in Ukraine revolves around signal processing and electronic warfare, this future is more or less now.)
In conclusion, I am cautiously optimistic that "AI" can reduce friction and increase strength, but I think the "AI" that is most certain to do that as, really, "targeting computers," and "signal processing software," not necessarily the stuff OpenAI is working on (although I don't count that out). Since I think that multiple powers will be using AI, I think that hostile AI will be adding friction about as fast as friendly AI can reduce is (depending on their parity.) What concerns me about AI use in warfare is the dangers of over-relying on it, both in terms of outsourcing too much brainpower to it, but also in terms of believing that "reducing friction" will save us the need to sharpen the pointy meatspace end of things. At the end of the day, being able to predict what someone is going to do next doesn't matter if you've got an empty gat.
More options
Context Copy link