The Next Fear on A.I.: Hollywood’s Killer Robots Become the Military’s Tools
The military seems to have a lot of bogus arguments:<p>“A core problem with A.I. in the military and in national security is how do you defend against attacks that are faster than human decision-making, and I think that issue is unresolved,” Mr. Schmidt said. “In other words, the missile is coming in so fast that there has to be an automatic response. What happens if it’s a false signal?”<p>If it is coming in too fast and&#x2F;or in too great a number to humanly counter then it is by definition not human.  So what is the problem with destroying it?  If the redundent sensors all malfunction that is a different problem that should be caught by long term testing (like the way we fix flaws in aircraft) especially before the system is armed.  In general it seems like an automated defense system should be left off.  It is only when current events make you think you&#x27;ll need it should it be turned on, and that should be widely advertised so everyone knows it is on.  If the argument is that this is a defense against a first strike nuclear attack, that&#x27;s a laugh.  Every major nuclear nation has had decades to smuggle in and hide nuclear weapons on the territory of their enemies.  Stopping some missiles will not stop nuclear devastation.  Even if you blow up all the nuclear missiles they will rain radioactive plutonium across the country and the world.  Turning on an automated nuclear defense is a last ditch warning, nothing more.<p>If you&#x27;re defending against conventional missiles or hypersonic conventional missiles, some are likely to get through anyway (look at what Ukraine has been experiencing).  In a war expect some losses, but also you know you are at war, hence you know when to turn on the automated defense system.  As the article states, the Patriot system already can work this way.  So is this really an unresolved issue or does the military not have a policy for when to turn on automated attack in a Patriot system?<p>Jet fighter pilots already have to deal with attacks that are faster than human response times.  They have automated systems for that.  A bullet or shell can travel faster than human response time.  A land mine detonates faster than human response time.  This is not an unresolved issue, it is a common issue.<p>The key question here is not response time, it is what does the AI actually do and how could it mess up?<p>“I fought very hard to get a policy that if you have autonomous elements of weapons, you need a way of turning them off,” said Danny Hillis, a computer scientist who was a pioneer in parallel computers that were used for artificial intelligence. Mr. Hillis, who also served on the Defense Innovation Board, said that Pentagon officials pushed back, saying, “If we can turn them off, the enemy can turn them off, too.”<p>Really?  So the enemy can turn off all your jeeps that have ignition switches?  Missiles have abort functionality, if the enemy figures it out they can abort all the missiles you fire.  This is an old solved problem.  Making sure an abort signal will actually work is an unsolved problem (witness the recent Starship launch where it almost did not).<p>Misinformation and disinformation are already big problems even without AI.  AI just makes it easier.  It&#x27;s not the AI that is the problem, it is knowing what is true, which has to do with people, not an AI.  There are already many systems that verify truth, some good (digital signatures), some not so good (Social Security number).  Work on the real problem, don&#x27;t blame the AI because it makes it easier.