'At its core, artificial intelligence is a military technology.'
False premise. How is it a military technology at its core as opposed to any other technology? Or every technology is a military technology at its core, in which case, so what?
False premise. How is it a military technology at its core as opposed to any other technology? Or every technology is a military technology at its core, in which case, so what?
- When airplanes came out, their first application was military.
- When networks and computers came out, their first application was military.
- When satellites were first developed, their first application was military.
A.I. has a lot of uses, but it is another new technology, a whole new field of computer science that is rapidly evolving and has clear, identifiable military applications. And its early stage of development means that each breakthrough can pose a strategic military advantage.
This is true whether you agree with his point about the morality of Google partnering with China.
What about agricultural technology? Modern farming methods feed a billion people, but armies march on their stomachs. Should they all go hungry?
One of the problems that just surfaced in the news yesterday is the realization that almost all prescription meds are manufactured in China. The risk that poses to the US population and DoD is incalculable. How do we get off China meds?
In your view, should we hoard medical technology? Doing so will lead to countless unnecessary deaths and tremendous suffering. Is that worth it in your eyes to preserve a military advantage?
If the Chinese were known to have stockpiles of Mustard Gas (a bio weapon not otherwise applicable to civilian life), then perhaps the US having exclusive knowledge of a cure or preventative substance would be a military advantage.
Your premise is that AI at its current stage is equivalent to a cure for cancer. I disagree.
First, mustard gas is not a bioweapon. It's a chemical agent. There will never be a cure because it's like saying that you have a cure for fire.
Second, the point raised above is that things like food preservation technology implicitly confer military advantage. The same is true of many lifesaving medical technologies, especially things like celox that treat trauma.
And then there's cryptography. I find it hard to believe that you (or anyone on HN) support Joe Biden's approach to restrictions there. But that's quite clearly a dual use technology.
Finally, I never said it was equivalent to a cure for cancer. I don't believe that, and it's disingenuous to put words in my mouth. But things like self driving cars probably will actually save lives, and even independent of that I think it's worth examining very critically what restrictions we as a free society are willing to impose to gain military advantage.
Is there a line for ML (what we're erroneously calling AI here) where you think sharing it is appropriate? Self driving car tech could certainly save a great many lives; is it more reasonable to share the next Viagra than to save those people?
I guess cars and packaged food are also ‚a military technology‘?
Guess what they do....
An article about 'AI' that requires actual 'I' to understand? Inconceivable!