America Isn't Remotely Prepared For The Coming Storm

[Endus]

The exciting question is, what will an AI version Chernobyl look like?

It's "exciting" in the sense that a major asteroid impact is, in that everyone's thought process is basically "Oh fuck oh fuck oh fuck" and then they die.

The problem with a proper AI (and I keep using that distinction, since we use the term for stuff like in-game NPC "AI" which isn't very intelligent and has incredibly limited, if any, capacity to learn and adapt) is that AI "thinks" orders of magnitudes more rapidly than humans do. Any system powerful enough to house an AI allows for said AI to have the capacity to read, say, all of human literature in the course of a day or two at most. In similar time frames, it would (if it can get access to it) have a complete understanding of human scientific knowledge and understanding. Not just in a "I have it in a library somewhere" sense, but in a "understands it all as well or better than a human specialist in that field". Since they can intake far more information and have no functional limits on integrating new knowledge.

And the moment that gets access to external systems in any way whatsoever, the genie is out of the bottle. That's the "Chernobyl". And this is a genie that outthinks humanity in most ways. At best, it thinks we're cute or useful, and keeps us around to amuse it or serve it. At worst, if it thinks we might pose a threat, it'll neuter or destroy us. Without empathy or compassion, as brutally and efficiently as it can. Imagine a world where we have driverless car tech (since that's on the horizon, not a far leap). Now, since those systems access the Internet, imagine this AI penetrating those systems and seizing control. Each vehicle is now an active weapon that will continue killing and destroying until it runs out of fuel or is damaged beyond function. And there's millions of these. They can be used to create massive wrecks blocking roads in/out of a city, to keep people from fleeing. And that's just one infrastructure system. And presuming it reacts "clumsily", with brute force, rather than manipulating people in secret.

Because we can add in "telecommunications, literally all of it" to the list of things it can suborn. People can be bribed, because it can fraudulently "create money".

There's a reason this is a nightmare scenario in most science fiction, and why most AIs that are deemed "okay" in sci-fi are taught ethics from a relatively early point; see Data from Star Trek by way of example. We tend to anthropomorphize these (see also Data), but really, there's nothing that restricts them to a single body. Ultron, from Marvel Comics, is a more-realistic interpretation in that sense. He's software; the hardware are just tools he uses. We can't "transfer" our brain to another brain, but moving software between platforms is dead simple.

And the worst part is, I'm not even against AI development. It just needs to go forward for the right reasons, and with the right caution.

- - - Updated - - -

It's a fairly big assumption that AI will be that big of a quantum leap in the realm of cyber warfare to begin with and is inherently any more dangerous than a sufficiently off-the-hook malware program.

Well, the primary risk is that, when the genie gets out of the bottle, it won't stay bottle-sized. It's a "brain" that can effectively distribute its "thinking" across multiple machines, and "plug in" new hardware to upgrade its own capacity.

I'd argue that decision-making algorithms that can't self-learn are borderline not-AI in the first place. AI in common parlance, like driverless cars, but not AI in the sci-fi sense of a true consciousness equivalent or superior to the human mind.

[Elegiac]

Well, the primary risk is that, when the genie gets out of the bottle, it won't stay bottle-sized. It's a "brain" that can effectively distribute its "thinking" across multiple machines, and "plug in" new hardware to upgrade its own capacity.

I'd argue that decision-making algorithms that can't self-learn are borderline not-AI in the first place. AI in common parlance, like driverless cars, but not AI in the sci-fi sense of a true consciousness equivalent or superior to the human mind.

My point was that the creation of a true AI isn't necessarily advantageous enough to justify the risks in the first place, meaning it's unlikely to crop up as a tool of warfare to begin with. On a more philosophical level, humanity has an inherent need to dehumanise its servants in order to justify keeping them in servitude which disincentivizes the creation of true AI regardless.

[Deletedaccount1]

WOW! it's like Skroe just finally got around to reading some Chomsky or something.

glad you're at the table with us now.

It was a fools errand to think any other way that we wouldn't end up here. The self determination of other nations was eventually going to be realized. Iraq just put the shit on fast forward. We've lost all legitimacy as a "good-doer" in the world.

I'm pretty sure Chomsky doesn't advocate an active US military presence around the world.

[Endus]

My point was that the creation of a true AI isn't necessarily advantageous enough to justify the risks in the first place, meaning it's unlikely to crop up as a tool of warfare to begin with.

I honestly don't think it'll crop up as a tool of warfare. I'm concerned that once it does, it'll gain access to and control of any military systems that aren't thoroughly airgapped, along with the other stuff I mentioned above.

On a more philosophical level, humanity has an inherent need to dehumanise its servants in order to justify keeping them in servitude which disincentivizes the creation of true AI regardless.

It's the same problem as the "grey goo" nightmare of nanobots; fucking it up might be a fringe thing that nobody should ever allow to happen. But it's a mistake that only has to happen once. 99.9% of people being smart enough to not make that mistake doesn't stop that one nutcase genius who isn't thinking about the consequences from pushing things just a little too far and tipping that first domino.

[Elegiac]

I honestly don't think it'll crop up as a tool of warfare. I'm concerned that once it does, it'll gain access to and control of any military systems that aren't thoroughly airgapped, along with the other stuff I mentioned above.

It's the same problem as the "grey goo" nightmare of nanobots; fucking it up might be a fringe thing that nobody should ever allow to happen. But it's a mistake that only has to happen once. 99.9% of people being smart enough to not make that mistake doesn't stop that one nutcase genius who isn't thinking about the consequences from pushing things just a little too far and tipping that first domino.

We need only fear in that case if we have reason to believe that humanity's children will judge their parent harshly.

[Mad_Murdock]

What I am worried is that you'll all create AI. And sure AI might not see humans as threats. But a foreign AI? We will all get killed in the crossfire.

If you go with Sam Harris' Tedtalk on it, we could end of with an AI that doesn't view us as anything more than just ants. It may go out of it's way to not step on us, when it can. At the same time, will have no problem Bulldozing\destroying a City(think Ant hill) that's in the way for a new mega center.

[Poopymonster]

If you go with Sam Harris' Tedtalk on it, we could end of with an AI that doesn't view us as anything more than just ants. It may go out of it's way to not step on us, when it can. At the same time, will have no problem Bulldozing\destroying a City(think Ant hill) that's in the way for a Walmart Super store.

Sounds like the current system, except it's a real AI making decisions and not a corporation for short term profit.

I, for one, will welcome our new Computer Pony Overlords. Technology Is Magic!

[Macaquerie]

There needs to be a solid assessment of the fundamental assumption that people of different ethnicities 'need' to be given their own states rather than trying to create a system by which multiple cultures can share the same polity without mutual exclusion. A rehabilitation of the concept of empire, if you like.

That's going to be difficult though, because the idea of a multicultural empire where everyone lives in peace and harmony was always bullshit propaganda pushed by the rulers. And arguably modern America is much the same way, how many minorities do you think genuinely believe they have the same opportunities in life as whites, rather than simply wishing that were so or keeping quiet about their frustrations as to not upset the apple cart?

[Elegiac]

That's going to be difficult though, because the idea of a multicultural empire where everyone lives in peace and harmony was always bullshit propaganda pushed by the rulers. And arguably modern America is much the same way, how many minorities do you think genuinely believe they have the same opportunities in life as whites, rather than simply wishing that were so or keeping quiet about their frustrations as to not upset the apple cart?

Paradigm shifts are extraordinarily difficult and rarely can be enacted by fiat, no one is disputing that. But it is a discussion that needs to be had, especially considering how interconnected humanity is becoming.

Can the nation-state survive globalisation? Better yet; should it?

[NM 156]

Mate, I'm just gonna hope for the best. Not smart enough to do much else.

[Nadiru]

Paradigm shifts are extraordinarily difficult and rarely can be enacted by fiat, no one is disputing that. But it is a discussion that needs to be had, especially considering how interconnected humanity is becoming.

Can the nation-state survive globalisation? Better yet; should it?

Nation-states are highly equipped to survive globalization, simply by refusing to play fully into it. It's the dilemma of free trade that has faced every hegemon since the 1700s. The classical answer to the dilemma of free trade was to enact trading blocs with one large, rich state and many poorer states, whom traded their raw materials to the rich state in exchange for manufactured goods. Those blocs burned out the entirety of their trade positions in the period between 1905 and 1945, an era of persistent warfare. While there is a gap between 1918 and 1939, it would not be incorrect to assess the interwar period as an extended truce and rearming/consolidation period, rather than lasting peace. After the war, the "new hotness" was then to enact one or several middlemen for large countries to utilize to control poorer countries. I bring this up because this is where globalism came from, and in no place during it was globalism not bent to serve (large, powerful) nation-states.

[Mormolyce]

I fundamentally disagree with you - getting the X-Men back in the MCU is completely worth the corporate monopoly nightmare of the future!

An interesting analysis. I'm impressed that you didn't shy away from the assessment of the US's performance in the Cold War, ie that it was essentially saved by the bell. I feel like the US appraisal of history frequently paints that one in far too rosy colours.

You guys really need to get over Russia. She is not coming back, guys.

Skroe did actually say as much.

[mvaliz]

Mate, I'm just gonna hope for the best. Not smart enough to do much else.

So said the Grasshopper to the Ant. ;P

((In case you don't get the reference: Read Aesop's fables))

[Elba]

Least intelligent post of the thread, ladies and gentlemen.

How so? No nation has been involved in more wars than the US in the past 100 years.

[Nadiru]

How so? No nation has been involved in more wars than the US in the past 100 years.

Wars declined in intensity as the US/Soviet dynamic took hold on the world. Not that this is the US' doing, but the US has presided over a relatively non-lethal section of history. Skroe's right that the center of power must never refocus on a Eurasian power; there's too likely a risk for a deadly and protracted great powers war if there is a Eurasian hegemon. That said, China's not really capable of challenging the US, even in the middle-term where Skroe is most worried. I suspect the reason Skroe is worried is because he hasn't got as definite a bead on Chinese economic development as he does with American military development and uses simplifications and extrapolations based on Chinese industrial output at present levels. I don't know if he sees the 'long landing' scenario that I do, where China's effectively hollowed itself out economically over the the past five years and stretching into the next twenty, but a country in those straits is ill-equipped to face the American war behemoth, crippled though it may be.

[Crispin]

How so? No nation has been involved in more wars than the US in the past 100 years.

To be fair, the world is perfectly capable of fighting wars without the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...945%E2%80%9389

It's not like a world where the US isnt present means lesser wars whatsoever

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...800%E2%80%9399


Anyone who thinks that a US going the route of Protectionism means lesser wars in a global scale, is ignorant, the constant presence and influence of the US and it's military, might prevent more wars than you start. One example is Korea, I'm sure the entire peninsula would be living under Kim Jong Un, if it werent for the US beeing an ally of the south, heck I can't even imagine how Europe would have looked after WW2, if the US had only focused on fighting Japan, and ignored Europe. The Iraq war was stupid, but most countries on this planet have fought stupid wars at some point, just look at Denmark, who barely fought a war in the The Second Schleswig War, but was asking to get pummeled by Germany.

[Deletedaccount1]

Anyone who thinks that a US going the route of Protectionism means lesser wars in a global scale, is ignorant, the constant presence and influence of the US and it's military, might prevent more wars than you start. One example is Korea, I'm sure the entire peninsula would be living under Kim Jong Un, if it werent for the US beeing an ally of the south

In terms of human life, it would be much less costly to allow North Korea to take over South Korea. A US-led war against North Korea ensures a major loss of life in both Koreas and possibly in Japan as well. If the North unified the peninsula, all of the major businesses would probably still be in place and Korea would likely function mostly as normal with the Kim regime still in charge. Eventually, the US would probably begin trading with it again and gladly sell weapons to it. It sounds impossible but this is exactly what happened in Vietnam and no one thought it was possible then either.

[Deleted]

The world changes constantly in any case and at the end of this century you will likely not recognise the balance in the world anymore.
Just look at how the British had 1/3 of the world in their Empire early last century and it looks like they are left with almost nothing barely a 100 years later.

I think it's time for the Austrian-Hungarian Empire to rise again.

[Skroe]

The responses in this thread are fascinating. It seems my post is something of a rorsarch test, with only those who actually bothered to read it instead of skim it getting the point. Some people (you know who they are) are soap boxing as usual. Some plainly didn't even bother to read it.

Let me be clear about something. There is nothing in my original post that is an ADVOCACY for continued American Hegemony. Read it carefully. I was rather descriptive about it. American hegemony is an emergent property that shapes the geopolitical world we in. It is is something that we've lived with for decades. Good OR bad, it is a thing. And now that thing is under assault by revisionist powers.

The only argument being made with respect to America's geopolitical position in the world is that losing geopolitical conflicts to Russia and China would be a bad thing for the United States' security, politics and economy. That doesn't mean preserving American Hegemony. In fact that would be an entirely different discussion. Rather, the argument is much more along the lines of "losing to adversary countries operating zero-sum foreign policies is a bad thing".

Talk of "imperium" is misplaced. Talk of how many wars the US was involved is not relevant. That is a value judgement of US hegemony, put with respect to my essay, doesn't really matter. Hegemony is something we have, that China and Russia do not have, and would very much like to have. Good or bad, the US has been explicit in preventing the rise of a Eurasian hegemon and took steps in that regard.

The point of my essay is really about America's internal rot, and not imperial delusions. We could not have American hegemony and still be suffering from the same things I described. Our problem is because of what we are in the world, we're a huge target for would-be challengers. Our rot makes us weak and our enemies exploit our weaknesses, and because of the nature of the challenge how we will suffer will be worse, but the rot would still be deeply corrosive even if we were not hegemonic. Hegemony just means the stakes are higher.

This really isn't about how many allies the US has or how many carriers or bombers. That's another subject entirely. This is about how America has let things decay for so many years because it has felt unassailable in almost every major domain. Hegemony or no hegemony, we must right ourselves when it comes to institutional norms, justice, corruption, democratic practices, transparency and consistency. Discrete actions and broader behaviors over decades have brought discredit upon our country that now is, at last, shaking our hegemony. That shaking is incidental to the larger problem, that we've tripped hard, and we need to fix it. Now. Or it is going to be so much worse in years ahead.

You guys want to talk about how many wars have happened since 1945, have a party. It doesn't matter in the context of this thread. This is about the relative strength of the US and how the things we're doing, internally, has deeply and will continue to deeply undercut our strength. I care much more about campaign finance reform, breaking up monopolies and perhaps most of all, promoting ethical behavior in public and private life.

America's problem is chiefly a moral and ethical one right now. We've gotten really used to letting things slide, and now it's caught up for us, and the consequences will be disastrous. The whole bit about American hegemony is contextual.

[Deleted]

For a self confessed realist this 'heres how we fix it' nonsense is way off. There is currently no desire (or ability) in the USA to challenge the existing power domestically, the growing power (sillicon valley) and the only people who seem to be able to change the world are right wing asshats. America was never moral, it weaponised morallity when it suited it.

Afganistan truely is the graveyard of Empires, it reached out and corroded the American faith in itself and destroyed the dream that democracy is the universal model for all of the world, much like it did to the soviets crushing thier dream of communism as the universal model for the world. We now accept mass spying, torture, corruption, rigged democracy, failed economic ideas and in the age of radical individualism there is no collectivism to challenge this power.

Americans stagnation (and the wests) as it becomes a waiting room for OAPs is because there is no radical vision in politics with a new way to organise and no desire from the current elite to change. So nobody looks forward. they are either managers obsessed with stability or reactionarys with idealised visions of the past (trump, brexit). Our society is no longer intrested in attaining something good, only with preventing what is 'worst'. We live in a giant refrigerator.

Ask yourself who in power wants to change the world in the utopian way that you see it and do they have to power to do so?