Slog Comments
The Future of Our War(s)
2
This is no surprise. They've been saying we're going to be in perpetual robot wars for a long time now. I can see a day when a population has an invisible shower of nanobots droppedon them that infect them with a brain controlling substance. Nothing too prosaic.
3
Based on your time stamps I can tell that neither of you watched the entire video before commenting.
8
#3.
Using a computer to watch video is like using a book as a doorstop.
Just tell me what you are saying, in text.
Using a computer to watch video is like using a book as a doorstop.
Just tell me what you are saying, in text.
9
War is so macho and studly. Everyone wins at war. And of course it's "Their" fault that "we" have to go to war. "Our" drive to destroy each other! WTF? Who is this "Our"? I don't have the desire to destroy anyone.
That's the problem, THOSE that start wars want to suggest it's OUR war that WE are all trying to stop but the "bad guys" must be destroyed first. NO SUCKER it's YOUR war NOT mine. I did not start it and I'm not responsible.
That's the problem, THOSE that start wars want to suggest it's OUR war that WE are all trying to stop but the "bad guys" must be destroyed first. NO SUCKER it's YOUR war NOT mine. I did not start it and I'm not responsible.
10
True, Sargon, it's not "your" war. But that's OK, you can spend the rest of your life paying for it anyway.
11
Esta guerra, la culpa es de los moros. Ellos la empezaron. Vds. continuaran lo que empezaron ellos! Hasta que liberaremos Morroco, Tunisia, todo Africa come en siglos de los romanos!
Esta es la solucion.
Esta es la solucion.
12
,I just watched the whole 16 minutes.
I found it descriptive rather than insightful (that latter is what I would expect from a speaker at a major conference).
My thoughts...I think of the introduction of atomic weapons and MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction). The thing that prevented MAD was not new technology, but new thinking. The entire array of game theorists and detente negotiators and academics (one who is a good friend of mine, served under Kissinger) who invented ways to play out the war with the Russians and therefore not have to go to war. The "as if" scenarios showed no-win and therefore, the war was never fought with nuclear weapons.
Nother thought. You mention terrorists. Terrorists (suicidal ones) are really no different from robots. So, American robots, are more of a counter-weapon to ideological driven suicide bombers who will use themselves as "robots" to attack American targets. Hence, we're merely responding to an enemy weapon in the way we do best -- with brainpower and technology.
As far as hoardes of robots being unleashed on a country as an act of terror or warfare, as always, it makes more sense for us to continue to develop this technology first, but also to play out the what-if simulations with both rational and irrational opponents.
A parallel I think of is say a Mafia hitman. He would be programmed to go after, say, the loved one of a prosecutor who is unwilling to say drop a charge against a capo. He is like an all-out robot that can sneak in and target an 'enemy' very effectively because presumably, one cannot protect a free person each and every hour. The hitman has the advantage unless you can apply counter technology to neutralize him. For example, worldwide tracking and computer databases, movement of funds, weapons tracking.
So, the robots will have some sort of signature that can be tracked hopefully. There's obviously a lot more than can be said and discussed. I just didn't hear any of it in that TED speech.
More...
I found it descriptive rather than insightful (that latter is what I would expect from a speaker at a major conference).
My thoughts...I think of the introduction of atomic weapons and MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction). The thing that prevented MAD was not new technology, but new thinking. The entire array of game theorists and detente negotiators and academics (one who is a good friend of mine, served under Kissinger) who invented ways to play out the war with the Russians and therefore not have to go to war. The "as if" scenarios showed no-win and therefore, the war was never fought with nuclear weapons.
Nother thought. You mention terrorists. Terrorists (suicidal ones) are really no different from robots. So, American robots, are more of a counter-weapon to ideological driven suicide bombers who will use themselves as "robots" to attack American targets. Hence, we're merely responding to an enemy weapon in the way we do best -- with brainpower and technology.
As far as hoardes of robots being unleashed on a country as an act of terror or warfare, as always, it makes more sense for us to continue to develop this technology first, but also to play out the what-if simulations with both rational and irrational opponents.
A parallel I think of is say a Mafia hitman. He would be programmed to go after, say, the loved one of a prosecutor who is unwilling to say drop a charge against a capo. He is like an all-out robot that can sneak in and target an 'enemy' very effectively because presumably, one cannot protect a free person each and every hour. The hitman has the advantage unless you can apply counter technology to neutralize him. For example, worldwide tracking and computer databases, movement of funds, weapons tracking.
So, the robots will have some sort of signature that can be tracked hopefully. There's obviously a lot more than can be said and discussed. I just didn't hear any of it in that TED speech.
14
"What does it mean to go to war increasingly with soldiers whose hardware is made in China and software is written in India?"
China and India make consumer products. Our robot army is made in the USA.
China and India make consumer products. Our robot army is made in the USA.
18
Might be a good time to dig up some of the Wired magazine style techno hype that was everywhere before we invaded Afghanistan. I think the technology they were most enamored with was "Global Hawk" which was going to use computers and GPS and shit to totally make it nothing like when the Soviets or the British tried to hold that country.
Or go back and read the hype about smart bombs, and GPS, and computers and communications that were going to make the first Iraq war totally different.
Of course the thing that was going to make the Vietnam War so easy was technology. Napalm and DDT and helicopters and the latest jets. And computers, believe it or not.
But of course this time it's different.
Or go back and read the hype about smart bombs, and GPS, and computers and communications that were going to make the first Iraq war totally different.
Of course the thing that was going to make the Vietnam War so easy was technology. Napalm and DDT and helicopters and the latest jets. And computers, believe it or not.
But of course this time it's different.
Comments (19) RSS