←back to thread

S1: A $6 R1 competitor?

(timkellogg.me)
851 points tkellogg | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.207s | source
Show context
yapyap ◴[] No.42947816[source]
> If you believe that AI development is a prime national security advantage, then you absolutely should want even more money poured into AI development, to make it go even faster.

This, this is the problem for me with people deep in AI. They think it’s the end all be all for everything. They have the vision of the ‘AI’ they’ve seen in movies in mind, see the current ‘AI’ being used and to them it’s basically almost the same, their brain is mental bridging the concepts and saying it’s only a matter of time.

To me, that’s stupid. I observe the more populist and socially appealing CEOs of these VC startups (Sam Altman being the biggest, of course.) just straight up lying to the masses, for financial gain, of course.

Real AI, artificial intelligence, is a fever dream. This is machine learning except the machines are bigger than ever before. There is no intellect.

and the enthusiasm of these people that are into it feeds into those who aren’t aware of it in the slightest, they see you can chat with a ‘robot’, they hear all this hype from their peers and they buy into it. We are social creatures after all.

I think using any of this in a national security setting is stupid, wasteful and very, very insecure.

Hell, if you really care about being ahead, pour 500 billion dollars into quantum computing so u can try to break current encryption. That’ll get you so much further than this nonsensical bs.

replies(17): >>42947884 #>>42947936 #>>42947969 #>>42948058 #>>42948088 #>>42948174 #>>42948256 #>>42948288 #>>42948303 #>>42948370 #>>42948454 #>>42948458 #>>42948594 #>>42948604 #>>42948615 #>>42948820 #>>42949189 #
amarcheschi ◴[] No.42948058[source]
I couldn't agree more.

If we're not talking about cyber war exclusively, such as finding and exploiting vulnerabilities, for the time being national security will still be based on traditional army.

Just a few weeks ago, italy announced a 16bln€ plan to buy >1000 rheinmetall ifv vehicles. That alone would make italy's army one of the most equipped in Europe. I can't imagine what would happen with a 500$bln investment in defense,lol. I don't agree with what Meloni's government is doing, but one of the ministers I agree more with is the defense minister Crosetto

Furthermore, what is being shown, at least for the time being, is that open source can be and is crucial in aiding developing better models. This collides with the idea of big, single "one winner takes it all" VC mentality (because let's be honest, these defense pitches are still made by startup/VC bros)

replies(3): >>42948794 #>>42950051 #>>42956354 #
piltdownman ◴[] No.42948794[source]
>italy announced a 16bln€ plan to buy >1000 rheinmetall ifv vehicles. That alone would make italy's army one of the most equipped in Europe.

So target practice for a beyond-the-horizon missile system launched ground-to-ground or air-to-ground? As an attacking force, conventional ground forces and tactics are a non-runner in a modern theatre of operations when faced against air and drone support. This is why no single EU country is incentivised into dumping money into any single area - as the only probable defense would be against USA/Russia/China to begin with.

The US proved it beyond doubt in Afghanistan - partisans simply haven't a chance against a gunship with IR or NV optics; the last time they levelled the playing field against air interdictors was in Charlie Wilson's Afghanistan when the Mujahideen took on that era of Soviet gunships with hand-held AA systems.

replies(1): >>42949456 #
1. amarcheschi ◴[] No.42949456[source]
Italy had a joke of tanks in the last decade(s), that weren't clearly on par with the other European alternatives and the defense budget went to other places, namely navy and air force. Since some of the Italian tanks are being dismissed, there was the need for a new tank, but not having invested much in tanks had the effect of not having cutting edge technology to develop an alternative. So the decision was taken to produce tanks from rheinmetall (Leonardo was available to another German producer, but they didn't want to transfer technology and produce in italy).

Not having tanks is a big no no due to latest events, I do not see the grudge you hold against them when it's clear they wouldn't be used in the same flat scenario of Ukraine or Poland. Given that Italy is highly mountainous, it made sense to prioritize air force and navy first. I think they're also compatible for anti drone guns

Piaggio air space was acquired a few weeks ago by baykar, hopefully it will produce drones.

I do not get why you're saying that a change in the approach of war makes tank not useful anymore, when it's clear they will eventually be adapted to counter drones and similar threats