51–60 of 88 posts
> If the research is successful, such computer systems would be able to think for themselves At what point will journalists stop writing this. We may very well have general AI at some point in the future, but I really doubt it's going to be in our lifetimes.
https://www.nytimes.com/1958/07/13/archives/electronic-brain...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The world of bespoke military hardware is very different from consumer devices or commercial installations. Where off the shelf stuff is used, a lot of work goes into neutralizing the infiltration and exfiltration vectors. It is one of the reasons military computing systems are both so expensive and so behind the cutting edge.
they also dont have magic pixie dust that solves the genuinely mathematicly hard problems involved in securing things. Your drone AI only needs to be stolen once.
Are there waste and &#+$ups? Sure.
But do an extra couple 0's produce more secure hardware? Absolutely.
> The Pentagon is in a race against China and Russia to infuse more AI into its war machine ... Much of the focus is on the U.S., China, and Russia, but I wonder who else is doing it? Several years ago, a leading thinker on the application of modern IT to the military noted that it could represent an historic change: Throughout history, military power depended mostly on the quantity of two resources, wealth and popul…
You're describing network-centric warfare [1], which was formalized in US military theory in 1996 (22 years ago) and has guided US military doctrine since.
I'm going to put this delicately, but it'd be nice if we didn't assume everyone in the military was an idiot and hasn't thought of the things we have.
> The Pentagon is in a race against China and Russia to infuse more AI into its war machine ... Much of the focus is on the U.S., China, and Russia, but I wonder who else is doing it? Several years ago, a leading thinker on the application of modern IT to the military noted that it could represent an historic change: Throughout history, military power depended mostly on the quantity of two resources, wealth and popul…
> Several years ago, a leading thinker on the application of modern IT to the military noted that it could represent an historic change: Throughout history, military power depended mostly on the quantity of two resources, wealth and population. You're describing network-centric warfare [1], which was formalized in US military theory in 1996 (22 years ago) and has guided US military doctrine since. I'm going to put th…
https://www.amazon.com/Science-Strategy-War-Strategic-Histor...
> The Pentagon is in a race against China and Russia to infuse more AI into its war machine ... Much of the focus is on the U.S., China, and Russia, but I wonder who else is doing it? Several years ago, a leading thinker on the application of modern IT to the military noted that it could represent an historic change: Throughout history, military power depended mostly on the quantity of two resources, wealth and popul…
> Several years ago, a leading thinker on the application of modern IT to the military noted that it could represent an historic change: Throughout history, military power depended mostly on the quantity of two resources, wealth and population. You're describing network-centric warfare [1], which was formalized in US military theory in 1996 (22 years ago) and has guided US military doctrine since. I'm going to put th…
> The Pentagon is in a race against China and Russia to infuse more AI into its war machine ... Much of the focus is on the U.S., China, and Russia, but I wonder who else is doing it? Several years ago, a leading thinker on the application of modern IT to the military noted that it could represent an historic change: Throughout history, military power depended mostly on the quantity of two resources, wealth and popul…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Several years ago, a leading thinker on the application of modern IT to the military noted that it could represent an historic change: Throughout history, military power depended mostly on the quantity of two resources, wealth and population. You're describing network-centric warfare [1], which was formalized in US military theory in 1996 (22 years ago) and has guided US military doctrine since. I'm going to put th…
It will remain hard to do that whilst they still haven’t thought of the idea that perhaps killing people for money isn’t the best use of one’s productive energies.
I'm as anti-war as they come but of course you have to recognize there are smart people who nevertheless decide to work with the military.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 'Secret' software is very hard to keep secret: once your enemy has a semi-intact drone/AI then they'll have upgraded their own fleet within months (if yours was indeed superior). All new systems have anti-tamper mechanisms designed in from the start specifically to minimize the chances of this happening (assuming they work as intended).
judging by our utter inability to secure software and hardware stacks consistently, i wouldnt hold out much hope for this approach.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
judging by our utter inability to secure software and hardware stacks consistently, i wouldnt hold out much hope for this approach.
Well Xbox One and Playstation are holding up pretty well and there are millions of units to try stuff on and they need low per-unit cost so can't even use more expensive anti-tempering stuff
And for the record the ps4 has had kernel level exploits published.