The Pentagon Is Accelerating AI and Autonomous Technology America’s military leaders are racing to deploy thousands of autonomous weapons and an AI-powered air monitoring system for Washington D.C.

  • lolola@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Maybe can we take a step back and ask whether we need thousands of AI defense bots at all? Or are we past that point?

  • Sylver@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    1 year ago

    Most military networks are closed circuit by design. I’m not sure how this could be implemented without also allowing back doors to be exploited. You wouldn’t want someone to be able to turn off your defenses as they begin an attack, for example.

    • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      There are a number of ways to do it. You can transmit a one-time code to the device that you set up right beforehand. No one’s going to be able to guess your 1024 character one-time password.

      You can even protect the password entry program itself with port knocking. If the right ports aren’t accessed in the right sequence, the enemy doesn’t even get a chance to try their passwords.

      Every server is on the Internet 99.999% of the time. They are constantly being tested. The right cybersecurity tools are available now.

      • max@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Just make the code 00000 like the nuclear launch codes were for years.

    • Otter@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m sure (or at least I hope) nuclear weapons have similar systems in place so that they can be launched or shut off as needed?

      In what ways would this be different

      • Vendetta9076@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, they don’t. Nuclear systems are for the most part closed sourced and built on DOS level hardware. Most of that shit can’t connect to the internet even if they wanted it to. The system you’re thinking about is radio waves between people talking.

  • zepheriths@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The department of defense was hacked just a few years ago, suck a button would have to have access to an internet. Meaning anyone could get to it and shut off the drones and such

  • Zozano@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    should there be an “all off” button?

    NO! Movies would be so much more entertaining if the bad guy learned the error of his ways but was still unable to stop the robot slaughter.

  • TotalCasual@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    They’ll just murder a bunch of people and then be turned off after having been shown to be ineffective too dangerous.

    It’s not like AI is reliable at this point. Way too many people are actively ignoring experts pointing this fact out and instead obsessing over Skynet or w/e made up sci-fi BS.

    Rather than be used for war, they’ll be used for threats of violence and propaganda. It’s not a new problem. It’s just a new version of that same problem.

    • winky88@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Rather than be used for war, they’ll be used for threats of violence and propaganda

      Surveillance is the word you’re looking for. Take all those NSA pipelines and run them through an AI and BAM, you’ve got your “terrorists”.

    • _NoName_@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      It should be noted that individuals at the forefront of AI research have a direct bias against saying AI is dangerous. It’s their job, and saying anything which presents this research as dangerous could halt funding, and put them out of a job. It’s also their passion, though, so it’s an even bigger deal for them.

      We have also seen individuals who have exited AI research calling for more regulation and ethics requirements. At the same time we are seeing AI ethics departments dismantled. These should stand out as red flags.

      Autonomous drones are actively being used to bomb villages in Papua New Guinea. The idea that this kind of tech is “only going to be used for threats of violence and propaganda” is already outdated. It’s being used today, and the US just plans to also adopt the tech itself.

  • Stuka@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    No. Such a thing would only be a good idea if you want the enemy to be able to turn your shit off when they please.

    You’re thinking of 'AI, as something intelligent that can go rogue. Current and near future that’s just sci fi.

      • Stuka@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s called a bug - aka what it’s called when a program behaves unexpectedly and against design intentions.

        That’s not going rogue, that’s doing what it was programmed to do.

        By your standards you’d also have to consider WW2 acoustic homing torpedos as rogue AI because they might home in on the ship that fired them.

        • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Honestly that wasn’t even a bug, it was a perfect execution of the instructions it was given to perform its task with maximum efficiency and would have been incredibly easy to see in advance if anyone had spent 5 minutes thinking about it. Classic paperclip maximizer style literal interpretation of goals.

        • SokathHisEyesOpen@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Your edit follows the point I was making. It doesn’t need to truly “go rogue” according to your definition, and it doesn’t need general intelligence to have the same disastrous outcome. We have examples of AI killing humans to accomplish the goal it is given, so we need to be damned sure that’s not going to happen in real life before deploying them over Washington DC.

  • SokathHisEyesOpen@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    and an AI-powered air monitoring system for Washington D.C.

    This is the most troubling to me. They’re entrenching themselves. They already wrapped razor wire and concrete walls around the white house. Now they’re deploying military assets on US soil.

    • redballooon@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They have been deploying military equipment for decades now on US soil, under the guise of police.

      The new development here is that this system depends on far fewer humans and their consciousness.

  • NekoKamiGuru@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    There is also a danger that the kill switch command could be leaked to the Russians or the Chinese who would use it to shut down the USA’s defenses just before a full scale invasion of a now defenseless USA.

  • wahming@monyet.cc
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Most people in this thread need to learn the difference between AI and AGI

  • techietechtecherson@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Sounds like the beginnings, of the plot to Horizon Dawn. Can’t have it both ways, either it’s a secure closed system with no way to stop it if it goes rogue or it has safety’s built in but then those could be exploited.