I'm Getting a Whiff of Iain Banks' Culture
Posted by ibobev 1 day ago
Comments
Comment by Matl 1 day ago
So not sure I buy the analogy.
Comment by jrowen 1 day ago
Comment by Matl 1 day ago
But he does perfectly demonstrate that you can't have operational efficiency if you're ignorant about your enemies because you're being advised by religious fanatics, if your goals are constantly shifting and your motives are purely selfish.
Comment by jrowen 1 day ago
Idk if I agree with this. First off, your initial verbiage is distinctly Trumpian. Second, I think Trump, like Hitler, activates latent sentiments that are largely kept at bay with "normal" post-WWII world leader politics. I think it's anomalous and once we get out of it things will normalize.
But really, my main point was that the politics and the "whys" of these decisions (capture Maduro, bomb Iran) are outside the scope of the article. It assumes that the decisions have been made and is looking only at the impact of specific technology on the operational outcomes.
It seems like a lot of the commenters are responding as if the article is making the point that "the US is like the Culture" but it's much more narrow and specific than that.
Comment by disgruntledphd2 1 day ago
That being said, it's possible that AI is helping here.
Mind you, given the sycophancy of current models, it's also possible that commanders are making worse decisions based on the results of these AI outputs.
Finally, if the US manage to get what they want without completely destroying the balance of power in the Middle East or sending oil to 150 a barrel, then I'd be much more likely to accept the authors speculation.
Comment by jrowen 1 day ago
Comment by Matl 1 day ago
Right, however that narrow point of essentially (overwhelming) technological superiority and 'efficiency' can be made using a very large number of science fiction. The Culture explores specific themes that make it what it is. If you completely dismiss them, I am not sure you are left with even a whiff of Iain Banks' Culture.
And to be clear, the point I am specifically making is that a lot of what the US is currently doing is not exactly rational, or even a supper efficient way to achieve their stated goals and a lot of it seems to be made up as they go along.
That does not feel like The Culture to me.
Comment by kaashif 1 day ago
I could not disagree with this more.
Just the perfect micro part means that computers have a far higher ceiling than humans.
No, it is not possible in theory for humans to have perfect micro with thousands of APM!
We're talking about hundred unit zergling swarms perfectly dodging tank shells. Hundreds of APM at multiple locations on the map. Perfect timing and placement for every order.
This is like saying an aimbot wouldn't make a top CS pro much better.
Comment by snovv_crash 1 day ago
Comment by L_226 1 day ago
Exactly the reference I was thinking of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKVFZ28ybQs
Comment by jrowen 1 day ago
Comment by OkayPhysicist 1 day ago
Force projection, targeted aerial strikes, intelligence gathering, and a nuclear deterrent play to the US miltary's strengths. Convincing the people who we just whacked the leaders of to like us? Not at all. The US doesn't have the political will to commit the monstrous acts required to stomp out an insurgency, and we, as the big bad empire on the global stage, can't help but inspire insurgents.
If you look at the boondoggles that the US has gotten itself into post Korea, they typically follow a pattern of "we show up, complete the key objectives in the first couple of days, and then spend years occupying territory while trying to root out an insurgency, creating new insurgents at least as fast as we neutralize them, then eventually limp away with our tail between our legs."
Lately, we've been just doing the first part. Which is the part we've been good at for ages. No need to blame AI, it's just that we aren't / haven't gotten around to doing the part we suck at.
Comment by red-iron-pine 1 day ago
until recently, the US generally tried to at least pay lip service to human rights. plus occupations are a great way to funnel money.
can't pretend to be pro-democracy at home when you're exterminating Afghan villiages, and wastelands don't need contractor money to build new schools.
Comment by jrowen 1 day ago
Comment by relaxing 1 day ago
Comment by tao_oat 1 day ago
The US has nearly always been successful in terms of conventional firepower and individual operations. E.g. in 2003 the US overthrew Saddam's government in a matter of weeks. The US won most battles in Vietnam. That doesn't change the fact that the strategic outcomes and long-term track record are poor. Trying to draw a link to AI or the current state of the US military feels flimsy.
Anyway, the recurring Big Question throughout the Culture series is "how should a highly progressive, developed, and egalitarian society act when it meets others who are not?". The US is sliding further and further from that ideal, and you can argue whether it was ever close.
Comment by arethuza 1 day ago
Comment by flowerbreeze 1 day ago
Comment by SpaceL10n 1 day ago
Comment by recursivedoubts 1 day ago
In my experience this is the big difference with AI vs humans. It's not superhuman intelligence (although it does have a massive working memory) but rather the ability to just grind on anything you throw at it, long past the point when any reasonable human would have taken a break or given up.
"It can kind of be be bargained with. It can kind of be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear but it will fake them! And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are absolutely right!"
Comment by 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 1 day ago
Comment by alistairSH 1 day ago
Comment by rimeice 1 day ago
[1] - https://www.darioamodei.com/essay/machines-of-loving-grace#5...
Comment by red-iron-pine 1 day ago
Comment by MrOrelliOReilly 1 day ago
EDIT: I see this post has been flagged. Why? I understand it’s political but it seems very much within the site’s ethos. I didn’t get the impression it was AI-writing either.
Comment by relaxing 1 day ago
Comment by yacin 1 day ago
Comment by euroderf 1 day ago
Comment by harperlee 1 day ago
Comment by soupfordummies 1 day ago
"Hey claude, tell me how the US can abduct Maduro. Your response should include all details regarding times, local places as well as blah blah blah"
Comment by jrowen 1 day ago
One area is "micromanagement." Hundreds of individual units moving and acting independently is very difficult for one human general to track, let alone react and give orders to quickly. Think more about rapid data analysis and surfacing supporting information than it being the singular mastermind behind the operation.
As the article says, it's not a huge quantum leap where it just obliterates everything. It's about just being a little bit smarter, a little bit faster, having that little edge that tips everything in their favor.
Comment by red-iron-pine 1 day ago
seeing where everything is, identifying whats a friend and not, and being able to react and move quickly.
automation and battle language and interfaces, etc.
a cursory academic overview: https://netlab.gmu.edu/pubs/10F-SIW-058.pdf
essentially, the interface discussed in the pdf is automated on the backend via AI, various JBOSS functions, etc.
the other piece is automated target recognition via arial and satellite images. imagery analysis has been a thing since WWI and with satellites you can get visibility to the point you can see license plates at the correct angle. scanning that level of detail 24/7 is very hard... but not with strong AI tools...
Comment by Matl 1 day ago
Comment by zer00eyz 1 day ago
This is the JOB of the military... and it has been for a long time. I would think there is even modern version of "war plan red" (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red ) somewhere.
Comment by silexia 17 hours ago
Comment by skybrian 1 day ago
The US being able to engage in a very one-sided air war is not surprising. The Gulf War went similarly well and so did the 2003 invasion of Iraq, at first.
I think it’s surprising that attempting to capture or kill a foreign leader actually worked. But I’m not sure if US presidents other than Trump would have tried? Trump has a lot of “you can just do things” energy due to being largely unconstrained by legal or moral considerations, or larger strategic concerns.
Israeli intelligence being able to so thoroughly hack the devices of their enemies clearly has a lot to do with this. What happened to Hezbollah was surprising.
Comment by automatic6131 1 day ago
Completely dry of any data, based on vibes and a vague whiff that maybe a chatbot did all the hard work done by hardworking spooks.
Effective operations have happened just like this long before chatgpt launched.
Comment by fsloth 1 day ago
Comment by timdiggerm 1 day ago
There is no measurement of efficacy here. It feels like these things are working better because the US military is now doing big public things, but that is not necessarily a good change over not-doing-big-public-things.
Comment by amenhotep 1 day ago
Comment by A_D_E_P_T 1 day ago
Comment by automatic6131 1 day ago
Comment by jacquesm 1 day ago
Comment by LoganDark 1 day ago
Comment by keybored 1 day ago
Today it’s how AI is a superpower for the already by-far the most powerful military in the world. Okay sure why not.
In the case of Maduro was that an amazing feat? Massacring the whole bodyguard entourage? Capturing a head of state who might have been a willing accomplice?
How does this square with bombing civilian targets in Iran? Another superhuman stalker-micro move?
Comment by TimorousBestie 1 day ago
This is either a misreading of the Culture (which for all its fictional foibles is not a federation of nation-states), a misunderstanding of what the European Union is, or both.
Comment by Apocryphon 1 day ago
Comment by pavlov 1 day ago
Let's see how many days until something else tops it.
Comment by sp1nningaway 1 day ago
I can commiserate with this person cooking up a rant based on a faulty initial premise but it's a doozy. Kidnapping heads of state and indiscriminate bombing campaigns with massive collateral damage certainly don't fit my conception of "acting powerful."