This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I guess I don't really understand the general rule you're trying to make. Nuclear is the only real weapon system that has truly had a strongly bounded development ceiling. We're still making better missiles, airplanes, drones, boats, ect. The bounding on those is mostly just hard physical rules. Intelligence scales in a new vector direction. Not only is the intelligence directly usable in warfare through things like cyber where the offence/defense equilibrium seems to favor the attacker, but it also acts as a multiplier for all the other scaling. You get better airplanes, drones, boats and missiles faster because one of the most bottle necked inputs to improvements is intelligence. And then there are all the recursive elements, scaling intelligence scales how well we can scale intelligence, it also allows us to efficiently search design space for other weapons systems to scale. Intelligence scaling is the trick that let humans conquer the planet, increasing our access to it is a whole new game.
The military does not actually just pursue boundless development. Budgets have to be justified, and if a threat is not assessed to be present then development will not be pursued. For this reason the government often foregoes or even loses capabilities simply for budgetary concerns. The F-22, for instance, faced budgetary scrutiny after the fall of the Cold War because the Soviet threat no longer existed, and when it was procured, it was without an IR sensor (which was arguably short-sighted: they are now integrating IR pods onto the Raptor). And even that procurement decision was made because the Raptor was assessed to be a less risky, more mature design (the F-23 was superior in many respects). Most of the ships the US has now were essentially the cheaper options: the Virginia class was a budget Seawolf, the Tico cruisers were meant to be the low-end of a high-low mix that never came about, the Burke class has been dramatically expanded in capability beyond what was originally intended, as I understand it, rather than spend more money to build a ground-up capability. The retirement of the F-14 left the Navy without a fleet interceptor and it's only been recently that the Rhino has been able to pick up the slack with improved AMRAAMs and the air-launched Standard, and even now the Rhino is likely dramatically less capable than an upgraded F-14 would have been (at least in payload, range, and sensor power, although the F/A-18 has a lower RCS).
Basically, the general rule in the military is not to procure stuff simply because it is good. You procure stuff to defeat a very specific threat. You won't be able to go to the military and say "intelligence is good, spend trillions" - you need to be able to justify the cost.
If the US government was willing to throw cash at the wall to improve intelligence across the board, they could raise service member's salaries dramatically. They don't. The smart kids all go to Wall Street or Silicon Valley, although the Navy's nuclear submarine program and the NSA are able to scrape a few off to fulfill a few niche roles.
That's not to say that I disagree with you (and obviously the military is very interested in and will use artificial intelligence) but it's to hammer home my point: military procurement is not about procuring the best systems, it is about finding a compromise between cost and effectiveness. If the US military was given a blank check every time the opportunity to completely dominate the world arose, we would have had no-kidding battleships in orbit for about half a century now (and unlike the question of AGI/superintelligence/etc. the question of putting a nuclear powered nuclear propelled battleship in orbit is primarily an engineering one; the math is all worked out and has been "solved" for decades).
Again, because I think this bears repeating: if you go to the US government and you say "I can protect and ensure US hegemony for the foreseeable future practically guaranteed, it will just cost half a trillion dollars" there's every reason based on historical performance to think they will instead spend half a billion on "good enough" systems that can kick the can down the road. While intelligence might be different from past weapons systems, it seems unlikely that that difference will change the approach of the government procurement process (or the approach of the free market, for that matter).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link