|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 12 2018 08:03 bo1b wrote:
I don't understand how people can't see that a.i isn't limited to the military, and that it's in your national interests to get it for a whole range of reasons.
Also, I went back a page and noticed discussion on Microsoft being a monopoly, it wasn't in the 90s, it isn't one now. For a bit of fun research, take a look at how many platforms around the western world use Google services btw, now that's problem.
lol microsoft is one of the few tech companies that was actually prosecuted as being in violation of anti-trust laws back in the 90s, and was paying literally millions of dollars per day in government fines to ignore government regulations
but more important is the alternative scenario, where we think about how rich bill gates would be if we lived in an alternative IP regime(s) where people could freely copy, edit, and redistribute his operating systems
|
On April 12 2018 08:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2018 07:55 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 12 2018 07:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 07:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 12 2018 07:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 06:54 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 12 2018 06:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 06:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 12 2018 06:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 06:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
Is this going to be another one of your "who cares, burn it all down" tangents? Seemed like a pretty straightforward question to me. I don't think this has anything to do with sincere concern over campaign violations or whatever other implied accusations other than they stand in as nominally legitimate justification for a politically motivated investigation. I don't think anyone sincerely believes our government is going to be 'cleaner' after this investigation completes. I've said it before to you. What's the point in improving laws if existing ones aren't enforced to begin with? What did I say last time? Hence my question if this was going to be another "burn it all down" tangent. I mean, it can be if you want? If the argument you're making is that the need to pretend this is a serious inquiry with serious consequences is in the necessary pursuit of enforcing existing laws so as to eventually improve them, I'd happily dispute that too. I mean, I don't know why you're pushing so hard on this being such an extreme issue. To campaign finance laws, it (and the other campaign misconduct unveiled thus far) will probably be lumped up into fines, or something similar. Cohen himself might get into big trouble, depending on what else he did during the campaign. For Trump, this is probably just another point of evidence being collected. I don't think "serious" = "extreme". I think I explained why I don't think it's serious but I can elaborate further if you need? I know full well that you don't think it's a big deal. But you're the only one using any verbiage like "terrible" or "serious" to describe it. It was noteworthy given context and current circumstances. I don't think you do 'know full well', because I do think it's a big deal, or at least emblematic of a very significant problem. My issue is people pretending it's topicality isn't petty point scoring and instead based on the underlying substance. They specifically lashed out in response to 'contextualizing' the problem without partisan blinders.
Yes, yes, we know. This is literally the argument that everyone knows you're making, but again you're making it take the long way around instead of just jumping to the point everyone already knows you want to talk about.
People like Hillary got away with it, people only care about partisan politics, nothing will get fixed unless the whole thing gets burned down, etc.
|
On April 12 2018 08:44 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2018 08:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 07:55 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 12 2018 07:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 07:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 12 2018 07:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 06:54 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 12 2018 06:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 06:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 12 2018 06:34 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Seemed like a pretty straightforward question to me. I don't think this has anything to do with sincere concern over campaign violations or whatever other implied accusations other than they stand in as nominally legitimate justification for a politically motivated investigation.
I don't think anyone sincerely believes our government is going to be 'cleaner' after this investigation completes. I've said it before to you. What's the point in improving laws if existing ones aren't enforced to begin with? What did I say last time? Hence my question if this was going to be another "burn it all down" tangent. I mean, it can be if you want? If the argument you're making is that the need to pretend this is a serious inquiry with serious consequences is in the necessary pursuit of enforcing existing laws so as to eventually improve them, I'd happily dispute that too. I mean, I don't know why you're pushing so hard on this being such an extreme issue. To campaign finance laws, it (and the other campaign misconduct unveiled thus far) will probably be lumped up into fines, or something similar. Cohen himself might get into big trouble, depending on what else he did during the campaign. For Trump, this is probably just another point of evidence being collected. I don't think "serious" = "extreme". I think I explained why I don't think it's serious but I can elaborate further if you need? I know full well that you don't think it's a big deal. But you're the only one using any verbiage like "terrible" or "serious" to describe it. It was noteworthy given context and current circumstances. I don't think you do 'know full well', because I do think it's a big deal, or at least emblematic of a very significant problem. My issue is people pretending it's topicality isn't petty point scoring and instead based on the underlying substance. They specifically lashed out in response to 'contextualizing' the problem without partisan blinders. Yes, yes, we know. This is literally the argument that everyone knows you're making, but again you're making it take the long way around instead of just jumping to the point everyone already knows you want to talk about. People like Hillary got away with it, people only care about partisan politics, nothing will get fixed unless the whole thing gets burned down, etc.
You present that (a reductive version imo) as if it's less sound than the amorphous argument I asked if you were making earlier. If that's the argument you want to make, make it. Don't pretend as if you've already demonstrated why yours is better.
EDIT: I know you guys like to make this about Hillary but I want to reiterate, while she had her own particulars, she is not the focus, just the most recent (and often egregious) Democratic example. Obama or Bill have and could be swapped in and be applicable in many cases. Same goes for Kamala Harris, Tim Kaine, or whoever the establishment favorite turns out to be.
|
While I already acknowledged that there are cases to be made, I don't entirely agree with yours. You start from a position of 'my position is right and if you have the opposite position you are thoughtless' which is kind of an indicator... but my problem is that you aren't acknowledging that the important thing is how ai is used. That could be a very complicated discussion though and certainly veers away from U.S. politics when discussed in a vacuum. I was more taking issue with a position being unsupported than the position being outright wrong.
Nah. If you would've made an argument, we could've had an argument. You didn't so i'm not entirely sure what i'm supposed to do. But sure, i'll bite. "How" do you think a military will use "AI"? It's a pretty easy answer if you keep in mind that we already have programmable drones, F&F missiles etc, what they're capable of and why "AI" means something different in this regard.
I don't see much evidence of a lot of money (relatively speaking) being spent there.... and much of that was over 70 years ago. Also, it's easy to call an out-there research project ridiculous in hindsight. Most importantly, I don't see a compelling reason to think that the U.S. is 'looking for a thousand more.'
Sure. Let me just briefly declassify all that stuff for you, lets not take the small stuff that we do know about as an example. Lets talk Zumwalt Class then?
Yes, that's probably true. Expensive cars are things that are wasteful as well.
I'd actually argue, yes. By design. Everything "luxury" is by definition wasteful. As in cars, or a couch for $30k. Don't really understand where you're going with that though. To be clear, even if wasteful, i'd still like a Jaguar F-Pace. I can acknowledge wastefulness and still want it. ^^
|
On April 12 2018 08:53 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2018 08:44 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 12 2018 08:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 07:55 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 12 2018 07:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 07:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 12 2018 07:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 06:54 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 12 2018 06:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 06:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
I've said it before to you. What's the point in improving laws if existing ones aren't enforced to begin with? What did I say last time? Hence my question if this was going to be another "burn it all down" tangent. I mean, it can be if you want? If the argument you're making is that the need to pretend this is a serious inquiry with serious consequences is in the necessary pursuit of enforcing existing laws so as to eventually improve them, I'd happily dispute that too. I mean, I don't know why you're pushing so hard on this being such an extreme issue. To campaign finance laws, it (and the other campaign misconduct unveiled thus far) will probably be lumped up into fines, or something similar. Cohen himself might get into big trouble, depending on what else he did during the campaign. For Trump, this is probably just another point of evidence being collected. I don't think "serious" = "extreme". I think I explained why I don't think it's serious but I can elaborate further if you need? I know full well that you don't think it's a big deal. But you're the only one using any verbiage like "terrible" or "serious" to describe it. It was noteworthy given context and current circumstances. I don't think you do 'know full well', because I do think it's a big deal, or at least emblematic of a very significant problem. My issue is people pretending it's topicality isn't petty point scoring and instead based on the underlying substance. They specifically lashed out in response to 'contextualizing' the problem without partisan blinders. Yes, yes, we know. This is literally the argument that everyone knows you're making, but again you're making it take the long way around instead of just jumping to the point everyone already knows you want to talk about. People like Hillary got away with it, people only care about partisan politics, nothing will get fixed unless the whole thing gets burned down, etc. You present that (a reductive version imo) as if it's less sound than the amorphous argument I asked if you were making earlier. If that's the argument you want to make, make it. Don't pretend as if you've already demonstrated why yours is better. EDIT: I know you guys like to make this about Hillary but I want to reiterate, while she had her own particulars, she is not the focus, just the most recent (and often egregious) Democratic example. Obama or Bill have and could be swapped in and be applicable in many cases. Same goes for Kamala Harris, Tim Kaine, or whoever the establishment favorite turns out to be.
As P6 already said:
On April 12 2018 06:46 Plansix wrote:
We will re-litigate every previous election until FDR. And then we might discuss Cohen getting that weird 150K and not know how many more 150Ks exists out there.
Next time if you want to have another burn down the establishment discussion, start being up front about it so people don't have to keep leading you to the obvious goalpost.
|
United States24633 Posts
On April 12 2018 08:59 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +While I already acknowledged that there are cases to be made, I don't entirely agree with yours. You start from a position of 'my position is right and if you have the opposite position you are thoughtless' which is kind of an indicator... but my problem is that you aren't acknowledging that the important thing is how ai is used. That could be a very complicated discussion though and certainly veers away from U.S. politics when discussed in a vacuum. I was more taking issue with a position being unsupported than the position being outright wrong.
Nah. If you would've made an argument, we could've had an argument. You didn't so i'm not entirely sure what i'm supposed to do. But sure, i'll bite. "How" do you think a military will use "AI"? It's a pretty easy answer if you keep in mind that we already have programmable drones, F&F missiles etc, what they're capable of and why "AI" means something different in this regard.
My 'argument' was that someone called something silly but didn't explain why it was silly. I wasn't talking to you originally. I won't tell you what you are supposed to do, but what you probably shouldn't do is start an argument with someone even though you aren't disagreeing with what they originally said. Anyway, AI can be used to make decisions about when how and how people die, and I'm generally not okay with that. AI can also analyze available intel and make suggestions to human operators that current targets are higher risk (i.e., higher risk of civilian casualties) than previously thought. In those cases, the AI can do good. It all depends on the exact application.
Show nested quote +I don't see much evidence of a lot of money (relatively speaking) being spent there.... and much of that was over 70 years ago. Also, it's easy to call an out-there research project ridiculous in hindsight. Most importantly, I don't see a compelling reason to think that the U.S. is 'looking for a thousand more.'
Sure. Let me just briefly declassify all that stuff for you, lets not take the small stuff that we do know about as an example. Lets talk Zumwalt Class then?
Which is it? "It's really not a bold statement to make, in fact, for the most part, it should be common knowledge" or we will need to declassify it all?
Regarding the Zumwalt, what about it? The government does have a big problem with cost overruns on emerging technology for a variety of reasons, but I don't consider that the same thing as ridiculous projects that the government never should have even considered.
|
On April 12 2018 09:03 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2018 08:53 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 08:44 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 12 2018 08:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 07:55 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 12 2018 07:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 07:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 12 2018 07:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 06:54 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 12 2018 06:43 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
What did I say last time? Hence my question if this was going to be another "burn it all down" tangent. I mean, it can be if you want? If the argument you're making is that the need to pretend this is a serious inquiry with serious consequences is in the necessary pursuit of enforcing existing laws so as to eventually improve them, I'd happily dispute that too. I mean, I don't know why you're pushing so hard on this being such an extreme issue. To campaign finance laws, it (and the other campaign misconduct unveiled thus far) will probably be lumped up into fines, or something similar. Cohen himself might get into big trouble, depending on what else he did during the campaign. For Trump, this is probably just another point of evidence being collected. I don't think "serious" = "extreme". I think I explained why I don't think it's serious but I can elaborate further if you need? I know full well that you don't think it's a big deal. But you're the only one using any verbiage like "terrible" or "serious" to describe it. It was noteworthy given context and current circumstances. I don't think you do 'know full well', because I do think it's a big deal, or at least emblematic of a very significant problem. My issue is people pretending it's topicality isn't petty point scoring and instead based on the underlying substance. They specifically lashed out in response to 'contextualizing' the problem without partisan blinders. Yes, yes, we know. This is literally the argument that everyone knows you're making, but again you're making it take the long way around instead of just jumping to the point everyone already knows you want to talk about. People like Hillary got away with it, people only care about partisan politics, nothing will get fixed unless the whole thing gets burned down, etc. You present that (a reductive version imo) as if it's less sound than the amorphous argument I asked if you were making earlier. If that's the argument you want to make, make it. Don't pretend as if you've already demonstrated why yours is better. EDIT: I know you guys like to make this about Hillary but I want to reiterate, while she had her own particulars, she is not the focus, just the most recent (and often egregious) Democratic example. Obama or Bill have and could be swapped in and be applicable in many cases. Same goes for Kamala Harris, Tim Kaine, or whoever the establishment favorite turns out to be. As P6 already said: Show nested quote +On April 12 2018 06:46 Plansix wrote:
We will re-litigate every previous election until FDR. And then we might discuss Cohen getting that weird 150K and not know how many more 150Ks exists out there. Next time if you want to have another burn down the establishment discussion, start being up front about it so people don't have to keep leading you to the obvious goalpost.
Again, there was no conversation. Someone just made a vague post about a random tweet from Trump referencing an unlinked story with the tangential conspiracy trigger words "Ukraine businessman" and I responded accordingly.
This new tactic of "I was just trying to get you to make your argument..." is interesting but I don't think it's very functional.
If everyone knew the argument, what need is there to draw it out explicitly if then no one is going to engage with it?
If anything, it seems to be reinforcing my original point, which I'm pretty confident isn't the intention of those that do it.
|
The tweet and the discussion was not random at all. But to discuss them we must rehash the same tired discussion we have had 200 times. But this is what happens when it is “but Hiliary/Democrats” time. We have accepted it, even if it is really boring.
|
On April 12 2018 09:08 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2018 08:59 m4ini wrote:While I already acknowledged that there are cases to be made, I don't entirely agree with yours. You start from a position of 'my position is right and if you have the opposite position you are thoughtless' which is kind of an indicator... but my problem is that you aren't acknowledging that the important thing is how ai is used. That could be a very complicated discussion though and certainly veers away from U.S. politics when discussed in a vacuum. I was more taking issue with a position being unsupported than the position being outright wrong.
Nah. If you would've made an argument, we could've had an argument. You didn't so i'm not entirely sure what i'm supposed to do. But sure, i'll bite. "How" do you think a military will use "AI"? It's a pretty easy answer if you keep in mind that we already have programmable drones, F&F missiles etc, what they're capable of and why "AI" means something different in this regard. My 'argument' was that someone called something silly but didn't explain why it was silly. I wasn't talking to you originally. I won't tell you what you are supposed to do, but what you probably shouldn't do is start an argument with someone even though you aren't disagreeing with what they originally said. Anyway, AI can be used to make decisions about when how and how people die, and I'm generally not okay with that. AI can also analyze available intel and make suggestions to human operators that current targets are higher risk (i.e., higher risk of civilian casualties) than previously thought. In those cases, the AI can do good. It all depends on the exact application. Show nested quote +I don't see much evidence of a lot of money (relatively speaking) being spent there.... and much of that was over 70 years ago. Also, it's easy to call an out-there research project ridiculous in hindsight. Most importantly, I don't see a compelling reason to think that the U.S. is 'looking for a thousand more.'
Sure. Let me just briefly declassify all that stuff for you, lets not take the small stuff that we do know about as an example. Lets talk Zumwalt Class then? Which is it? "It's really not a bold statement to make, in fact, for the most part, it should be common knowledge" or we will need to declassify it all? Regarding the Zumwalt, what about it? The government does have a big problem with cost overruns on emerging technology for a variety of reasons, but I don't consider that the same thing as ridiculous projects that the government never should have even considered.
the US military wants drones flown and operated by AI that can be deployed in war/crime zones. such drones will automatically find and engage enemies/criminals when time is of the essence. like a better version of the sensor wall in the American Operation Igloo White
|
My 'argument' was that someone called something silly but didn't explain why it was silly. I wasn't talking to you originally. I won't tell you what you are supposed to do, but what you probably shouldn't do is start an argument with someone even though you aren't disagreeing with what they originally said. Anyway, AI can be used to make decisions about when how and how people die, and I'm generally not okay with that. AI can also analyze available intel and make suggestions to human operators that current targets are higher risk (i.e., higher risk of civilian casualties) than previously thought. In those cases, the AI can do good. It all depends on the exact application.
First: your example of what an AI could do is actually a simulation, not an AI. We already have that, and already do that.
If you're talking "on the fly while a pilot is controlling the drone to the target", it doesn't matter. Once a target is marked, it gets shot. You don't call back an attack because there's a civilian there (edit: and that would assume that the AI somehow has different access to information than the operator/his superior). AI won't change military doctrines. At least not to prevent civilian loss of life.
The first part was the correct one: it'll make decisions of some sort. The only two things not computerised in military today are decisions, and pulling the trigger. These two options you have for AI.
Second: history, and i mean, every single military advancement of any sort, has shown that it always, always will be used in the "worst" way possible. It's silly to assume AI would be any different. It will be used to make warfare more "efficient", and "clean". Something war isn't and absolutely isn't and shouldn't be.
Which is it? "It's really not a bold statement to make, in fact, for the most part, it should be common knowledge" or we will need to declassify it all?
Regarding the Zumwalt, what about it? The government does have a big problem with cost overruns on emerging technology for a variety of reasons, but I don't consider that the same thing as ridiculous projects that the government never should have even considered.
I linked you 5 examples that took me 20 seconds of googling. You told me "not good enough", i did my part: look yourself. There's plenty declassified stupid stuff already out there, and that's only the declassified stuff. It's again silly to assume that for some reason magically all spending into stupid things military stopped and is now spent on relevant things.
And the Zumwalt is exactly that. It's a ridiculous project that the government should've never even considered and now that it's built, exactly that becomes clear. Not only is it unreliable (panama canal), it doesn't actually have a purpose at all. It's worse for air defense as the predecessor. The stealth actually doesn't really work. The guns were replaced, so the original purpose it was built for, can't be accomplished anymore. It just isn't an advancement in any way over the old Burke class ships. In fact, the old Burke class ships are now being constructed again, not the Zumwalt Class. The Zumwalt is dead. If ordering three ships without purpose for $23b isn't a "ridiculous project", then i don't really know what is.
Keep in mind, that ship was built/designed around a weapon system that didn't exist. And it still doesn't.
edit2, well after reading this again, it is quite off topic
Do we have a military thread of sorts?
|
On April 12 2018 09:17 Plansix wrote:
The tweet and the discussion was not random at all. But to discuss them we must rehash the same tired discussion we have had 200 times. But this is what happens when it is “but Hiliary/Democrats” time. We have accepted it, even if it is really boring.
I'm going to ask you a very simple question if you insist on posting like this.
What discussion? Obviously not the one about my post, there was some other discussion that keeps getting referenced that I was interrupting. What discussion?
|
On April 12 2018 09:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2018 09:17 Plansix wrote:
The tweet and the discussion was not random at all. But to discuss them we must rehash the same tired discussion we have had 200 times. But this is what happens when it is “but Hiliary/Democrats” time. We have accepted it, even if it is really boring. I'm going to ask you a very simple question if you insist on posting like this. What discussion? Obviously not the one about my post, there was some other discussion that keeps getting referenced that I was interrupting. What discussion?
I mean, it's not my fault I posted after you. Because the issue of Cohen's involvement, and surrounding matters of his financing and position as a "fixer", is all quite interesting. Which I did supply the context for, to you.
But despite insistence that your line of questioning was not a "whataboutism", "burn it all down", etc. rant, it really just was. So fine, lesson learned. Again.
|
On April 12 2018 09:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2018 09:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 09:17 Plansix wrote:
The tweet and the discussion was not random at all. But to discuss them we must rehash the same tired discussion we have had 200 times. But this is what happens when it is “but Hiliary/Democrats” time. We have accepted it, even if it is really boring. I'm going to ask you a very simple question if you insist on posting like this. What discussion? Obviously not the one about my post, there was some other discussion that keeps getting referenced that I was interrupting. What discussion? I mean, it's not my fault I posted after you. Because the issue of Cohen's involvement, and surrounding matters of his financing and position as a "fixer", is all quite interesting. Which I did supply the context for, to you. But despite insistence that your line of questioning was not a "whataboutism", "burn it all down", etc. rant, it really just was. So fine, lesson learned. Again.
Okay, it's time to put the silly "whataboutism" argument to bed.
Per the article referenced in the tweet:
Mr. Pinchuk is the son-in-law of a former president of Ukraine, Leonid Kuchma, who from 1994 to 2005 led a government criticized for corruption, nepotism and the murder of dissident journalists. Mr. Pinchuk, who has been accused by steel makers in the United States of illegally dumping steel on the American market at artificially low prices, drew more scrutiny during the campaign for his ties to Hillary Clinton and her family foundation. He has donated more than $13 million to that organization since 2006.
www.nytimes.com
This whole ridiculous "whataboutism" argument is dependent on the premise that a fact from the article mentioned in the tweet isn't relevant.
This entire exercise has been an excellent demonstration of a lot of what's wrong with the discourse.
MOD NOTE: + Show Spoiler +I sincerely hope you guys look closely at this entire engagement from tweet till at least now and consider it in the new moderation standards
|
United States24633 Posts
On April 12 2018 09:34 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +My 'argument' was that someone called something silly but didn't explain why it was silly. I wasn't talking to you originally. I won't tell you what you are supposed to do, but what you probably shouldn't do is start an argument with someone even though you aren't disagreeing with what they originally said. Anyway, AI can be used to make decisions about when how and how people die, and I'm generally not okay with that. AI can also analyze available intel and make suggestions to human operators that current targets are higher risk (i.e., higher risk of civilian casualties) than previously thought. In those cases, the AI can do good. It all depends on the exact application.
First: your example of what an AI could do is actually a simulation, not an AI. We already have that, and already do that. If you're talking "on the fly while a pilot is controlling the drone to the target", it doesn't matter. Once a target is marked, it gets shot. You don't call back an attack because there's a civilian there. AI won't change military doctrines. You actually do call back an attack if a sudden change in what is known about the target makes the target no longer appropriate. There are of course limits... you can't tell a bullet to turn around.
Also, I can understand your problem with my example in the sense that the discussion was specifically about weaponizing ai, however, you seem to have an overly narrow view of what ai is. Also, improved ai can be used to replace ai that is already being used today to a less significant degree.
The first part was the correct one: it'll make decisions of some sort. The only two things not computerised in military today are decisions, and pulling the trigger. These two options you have for AI. There are plenty of other things that are not computerized. You talk in absolutes so much that it's possible to rightfully disagree with almost everything you say. Also, some decisions are computerized although, thankfully, not too many. Hell, even when I need to piss in a cup is computerized.
Second: history, and i mean, every single military advancement of any sort, has shown that it always, always will be used in the "worst" way possible. It's silly to assume AI would be any different. I half agree with you but, once again, you do such a good job of speaking in absolute extremes that it's hard to take seriously.
Show nested quote +Which is it? "It's really not a bold statement to make, in fact, for the most part, it should be common knowledge" or we will need to declassify it all?
Regarding the Zumwalt, what about it? The government does have a big problem with cost overruns on emerging technology for a variety of reasons, but I don't consider that the same thing as ridiculous projects that the government never should have even considered.
I linked you 5 examples that took me 20 seconds of googling. You told me "not good enough", i did my part: look yourself. There's plenty declassified stupid stuff already out there, and that's only the declassified stuff. It's again silly to assume that for some reason magically all spending into stupid things military stopped and is now spent on relevant things.
And the Zumwalt is exactly that. It's a ridiculous project that the government should've never even considered and now that it's built, exactly that becomes clear. Let's see how much of this is simply hindsight because of problems with a new cutting edge design and how much is stuff that was obviously ridiculous from the getgo.
Not only is it unreliable (panama canal)
I judge this to be hindsight. While major propulsion plant problems are no laughing matter, they aren't necessarily indicative of a ridiculous project... unless you can point to obvious things that were know in the design and initial construction phases that were ignored or otherwise shoved aside... got any? I guess any time a ship breaks down you can simply declare it ridiculous and lump it together with actual ridiculous projects.
it doesn't actually have a purpose at all. It's worse for air defense as the predecessor. The stealth actually doesn't really work. The guns were replaced, so the original purpose it was built for, can't be accomplished anymore. It just isn't an advancement in any way over the old Burke class ships. In fact, the old Burke class ships are now being constructed again, not the Zumwalt Class. The Zumwalt is dead. If ordering three ships without purpose for $23b isn't a "ridiculous project", then i don't really know what is.
Keep in mind, that ship was built/designed around a weapon system that didn't exist. And it still doesn't.
It is not uncommon for platforms to be designed in conjunction with new technology. The electromagnetic aircraft launcher on carriers is similar. The ship was designed to require new technology, and hiccups with the new technology have caused some major (although not as major as in the case of Zumwalt) setbacks. This is not necessarily 'ridiculous' though, this is taking risk. You can argue too much risk was taken in the case of Zumwalt, and not in the case of Ford, but that's hindsight. You can argue too much risk was taken in both cases, and I'd be okay with that, although when a class is going to be around for decades you generally can't afford to stick only to older safe and proven technology.
So what happened in the case of Zumwalt? The technology it was designed around, the Long Range Land Attack Projectile, was not cost effective unless the class was large enough to justify the R&D costs. Was the original primary purpose of the Zumwalt Class, naval gunfire support (i.e., battleships) ridiculous? Perhaps... battleships are not as useful as they were back in the day... although we'll probably never know for sure. Trying to mimic some of the most successful warships ever built while maintaining some additional flexibility sounds good on paper at least. Battleships by themselves are not justified, but a ship that also can assist with surface warfare and anti-aircraft warfare is not wasted in situations where battleships aren't needed.
What it really comes down to is, why did the class experience such severe cost overruns that the class needed to be cut back to just a few ships? Note that the intention was to spend a little more money up front in order to have the ship cheaper to operate over its lifetime. The drawback is that cost overruns place the project more at risk of being cancelled despite the long-term costs being comparable or advantageous as compared to traditional ships with higher manning needs and operational costs. In hindsight, one could argue that the Navy needed to be more conservative with their attempts to implement new technologies that did not support the reduced manning and operating costs objective. There was a combination of a lot of new technology, bad luck, and general underestimation of how susceptible large government weapons projects are to cost overruns. If the new technologies had developed more favorably, and the class size didn't end up shrinking that much (such that the main weapon system didn't also get cancelled), then it suddenly wouldn't be a ridiculous project anymore. To be honest, it's very difficult to analyze exactly what led to the severe cost overruns without getting way into the weeds.
The stealth design is questionable but not so much for the reason you gave. It worked fairly well (probably not as well as advertised) but wasn't useful for the original mission of assaulting shorelines since you can just see the ship. This piece of the puzzle is what comes across as a ridiculous decision to me (although not high impact I don't think).
The government struggles to predict what they can accomplish with a new class of technology, and they win some and they lose some. Zumwalt is one of the most extreme cases, but it wasn't apparent from the beginning, and it often isn't.
|
On April 12 2018 10:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2018 09:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 12 2018 09:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 09:17 Plansix wrote:
The tweet and the discussion was not random at all. But to discuss them we must rehash the same tired discussion we have had 200 times. But this is what happens when it is “but Hiliary/Democrats” time. We have accepted it, even if it is really boring. I'm going to ask you a very simple question if you insist on posting like this. What discussion? Obviously not the one about my post, there was some other discussion that keeps getting referenced that I was interrupting. What discussion? I mean, it's not my fault I posted after you. Because the issue of Cohen's involvement, and surrounding matters of his financing and position as a "fixer", is all quite interesting. Which I did supply the context for, to you. But despite insistence that your line of questioning was not a "whataboutism", "burn it all down", etc. rant, it really just was. So fine, lesson learned. Again. Okay, it's time to put the silly "whataboutism" argument to bed. Per the article referenced in the tweet: Show nested quote +Mr. Pinchuk is the son-in-law of a former president of Ukraine, Leonid Kuchma, who from 1994 to 2005 led a government criticized for corruption, nepotism and the murder of dissident journalists. Mr. Pinchuk, who has been accused by steel makers in the United States of illegally dumping steel on the American market at artificially low prices, drew more scrutiny during the campaign for his ties to Hillary Clinton and her family foundation. He has donated more than $13 million to that organization since 2006. www.nytimes.comThis whole ridiculous "whataboutism" argument is dependent on the premise that a fact from the article mentioned in the tweet isn't relevant. This entire exercise has been an excellent demonstration of a lot of what's wrong with the discourse. MOD NOTE: + Show Spoiler +I sincerely hope you guys look closely at this entire engagement from tweet till at least now and consider it in the new moderation standards
It has nothing to do the article, and entirely about what you want to discuss.
The fact that you read the article, but latched onto two paragraphs that mentioned the Clintons, and proceeded to make everyone else point out the context that you apparently read but decided to ignore, and even when that context is brought up still try to point the discussion back to other people doing it too, is "whataboutism".
So, again, please. If you want to force the discussion into another anti-establishment rant, just do it from the start so I can avoid it from the start.
|
Actually I apologize this is off topic.
|
On April 12 2018 10:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2018 10:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 09:56 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 12 2018 09:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 09:17 Plansix wrote:
The tweet and the discussion was not random at all. But to discuss them we must rehash the same tired discussion we have had 200 times. But this is what happens when it is “but Hiliary/Democrats” time. We have accepted it, even if it is really boring. I'm going to ask you a very simple question if you insist on posting like this. What discussion? Obviously not the one about my post, there was some other discussion that keeps getting referenced that I was interrupting. What discussion? I mean, it's not my fault I posted after you. Because the issue of Cohen's involvement, and surrounding matters of his financing and position as a "fixer", is all quite interesting. Which I did supply the context for, to you. But despite insistence that your line of questioning was not a "whataboutism", "burn it all down", etc. rant, it really just was. So fine, lesson learned. Again. Okay, it's time to put the silly "whataboutism" argument to bed. Per the article referenced in the tweet: Mr. Pinchuk is the son-in-law of a former president of Ukraine, Leonid Kuchma, who from 1994 to 2005 led a government criticized for corruption, nepotism and the murder of dissident journalists. Mr. Pinchuk, who has been accused by steel makers in the United States of illegally dumping steel on the American market at artificially low prices, drew more scrutiny during the campaign for his ties to Hillary Clinton and her family foundation. He has donated more than $13 million to that organization since 2006. www.nytimes.comThis whole ridiculous "whataboutism" argument is dependent on the premise that a fact from the article mentioned in the tweet isn't relevant. This entire exercise has been an excellent demonstration of a lot of what's wrong with the discourse. MOD NOTE: + Show Spoiler +I sincerely hope you guys look closely at this entire engagement from tweet till at least now and consider it in the new moderation standards It has nothing to do the article, and entirely about what you want to discuss. The fact that you read the article, but latched onto two paragraphs that mentioned the Clintons, and proceeded to make everyone else point out the context that you apparently read but decided to ignore, and even when that context is brought up still try to point the discussion back to other people doing it too, is "whataboutism". So, again, please. If you want to force the discussion into another anti-establishment rant, just do it from the start so I can avoid it from the start.
No one forced you to engage with what you already said everyone recognized. That's why I made that previous post about that point.
I didn't "latch on", I simply mentioned it.
If you want to dismiss (without presenting an argument of your own) my point about the importance of taking these things seriously, or the mockery we make when we don't, at least have the fortitude to explain how your position is better.
Simply attacking my position as "ranting" doesn't invalidate it, or substantiate whatever position it is you're holding as better.
|
United States42262 Posts
On April 12 2018 06:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2018 05:57 Plansix wrote:On April 12 2018 05:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 05:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 12 2018 05:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 05:48 Excludos wrote:On April 12 2018 04:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 11 2018 23:44 Doodsmack wrote:
Trump had no idea that the Ukrainian was going to donate to his charity. It was all arranged by someone else, without trumps knowledge.
Just to be clear, that's the same Ukranian that donated ~100x that to the Clinton Foundation, for what I'm sure are completely different reasons right? Just to be clear, you're going straight for whataboutism? No, just clarifying context. This is a common confusion here I've noticed. I mean, Clinton Foundation was already investigated over this and other such donations. And this is also tied to Cohen. Oh, well if there was an investigation... So? The point is that there's some ambiguous cloud around the idea this guy gave Trump's foundation 150k but knowing he gave 100x that to the Clinton foundation puts it in a rather different context. So is it fine because Clinton did it? Or is it bad for both of them? Do we need a footer in every single post citing the three common ways Clinton did the same thing and how those are also bad to discuss anything that Trump and his people do? I mean whatever influence $150k buys one has to presume ~100x that buys substantially more. So of course they are both bad, but only one seemed to raise any concern among liberals.
Are we going to rehash the secret Clinton sex apartment dungeon above the Presidential Library again or are you willing to concede that there is a difference between paying Hillary $15m and donating $15m to the Clinton Foundation?
|
Maybe this isn't super interesting but I though it was. Hopefully Pompeo, who is getting pounded in some media corners, really is serious about his new job. And of course there is the tidbit that he called Clinton at all. And she took it. And it shows that really no one liked Tillerson, lol.
Pompeo asks Clinton for advice as he preps for confirmation battle
The secretary of state nominee, who trashed his Democratic predecessor over Benghazi, isn’t taking any Senate votes for granted.
As a sharply partisan Republican member of Congress, CIA Director Mike Pompeo tormented former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over her response to the deadly 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, which Pompeo called “morally reprehensible.” He also once liked a tweet that branded her successor, John Kerry, a “traitor.”
But now that Pompeo faces a tough confirmation process to become secretary of state himself, he has reached out to Clinton and Kerry, as well as every other living occupant of the office, to ask for guidance. Clinton, for one, has been willing to help.
“These were lengthy calls seeking advice” from the former secretaries, a person familiar with Pompeo’s prep work told POLITICO. “He understands the gravity of the challenge before him.”
While juggling his day job at the CIA, the person said, Pompeo has been participating in briefing sessions at the State Department, reading thick stacks of material, much of it country-specific, and participating in mock Q&As to prepare for a sure-fire grilling before U.S. senators. He’s also talking to a range of people at the State Department, including career civil and foreign service staffers who felt sidelined under former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.
It’s part of Pompeo’s mixture of crash course and charm offensive as he prepares for a Thursday confirmation hearing before a closely divided Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Although no one thinks Pompeo has had a political conversion, he seems determined to gain some Democratic votes — and demonstrate more respect for his predecessors and future employees than did Tillerson, who never spoke at length to either Kerry or Clinton and who alienated his department’s rank and file.
Former U.S. officials say that — in both his confirmation hearing and in the job, if he is confirmed — Pompeo will have to find a way to get along with both Donald Trump and a diplomatic crew that the Republican president disdains.
“Pompeo’s most challenging task is to keep the trust of the president while also earning the trust of the State Department bureaucracy,” said Ilan Goldenberg, who served at State in the Obama administration. “If he is too hard-line and ideological, he will not earn the trust of the diplomats and won’t be an effective negotiator and spokesman on the international stage. But he also has to avoid the perception that he has been co-opted by the ‘softies’ at Foggy Bottom or he’ll lose influence in the West Wing.”
Pompeo has managed to stay in Trump’s good graces for more than a year — something a shrinking number of other presidential aides can say. And by all accounts, he also is eager to serve as secretary of state, despite the largely painful experience of Tillerson, who clashed with the president and never earned his department’s trust.
Pompeo, a former Army officer who graduated first in his class at West Point and has a degree from Harvard Law School, actually began quiet preparations for the job well before Trump fired Tillerson in mid-March — seeking advice about the position while sizing up potential deputies.
During their talk, Clinton advised Pompeo to stem the flight of career diplomats who quit under Tillerson, according to a person familiar with the call.
But standing between Pompeo and Foggy Bottom are dozens of hostile Democratic senators, and at least one Republican — raising questions about his ability to win majority approval from the Foreign Relations Committee, which is divided 11-10 in favor of Republicans.
Second half at Politico
|
On April 12 2018 11:40 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2018 06:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 05:57 Plansix wrote:On April 12 2018 05:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 05:51 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 12 2018 05:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 12 2018 05:48 Excludos wrote:On April 12 2018 04:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Just to be clear, that's the same Ukranian that donated ~100x that to the Clinton Foundation, for what I'm sure are completely different reasons right? Just to be clear, you're going straight for whataboutism? No, just clarifying context. This is a common confusion here I've noticed. I mean, Clinton Foundation was already investigated over this and other such donations. And this is also tied to Cohen. Oh, well if there was an investigation... So? The point is that there's some ambiguous cloud around the idea this guy gave Trump's foundation 150k but knowing he gave 100x that to the Clinton foundation puts it in a rather different context. So is it fine because Clinton did it? Or is it bad for both of them? Do we need a footer in every single post citing the three common ways Clinton did the same thing and how those are also bad to discuss anything that Trump and his people do? I mean whatever influence $150k buys one has to presume ~100x that buys substantially more. So of course they are both bad, but only one seemed to raise any concern among liberals. Are we going to rehash the secret Clinton sex apartment dungeon above the Presidential Library again or are you willing to concede that there is a difference between paying Hillary $15m and donating $15m to the Clinton Foundation?
Of course there is. We'd probably dispute the distance, but I'm not going to suggest they are the same thing. I feel it's relevant to note the much smaller amount in question was also given to Trump's foundation, not Trump himself.
On April 12 2018 11:45 Introvert wrote:Maybe this isn't super interesting but I though it was. Hopefully Pompeo, who is getting pounded in some media corners, really is serious about his new job. And of course there is the tidbit that he called Clinton at all. And she took it. And it shows that really no one liked Tillerson, lol. Show nested quote +
Pompeo asks Clinton for advice as he preps for confirmation battle
The secretary of state nominee, who trashed his Democratic predecessor over Benghazi, isn’t taking any Senate votes for granted.
As a sharply partisan Republican member of Congress, CIA Director Mike Pompeo tormented former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over her response to the deadly 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, which Pompeo called “morally reprehensible.” He also once liked a tweet that branded her successor, John Kerry, a “traitor.”
But now that Pompeo faces a tough confirmation process to become secretary of state himself, he has reached out to Clinton and Kerry, as well as every other living occupant of the office, to ask for guidance. Clinton, for one, has been willing to help.
“These were lengthy calls seeking advice” from the former secretaries, a person familiar with Pompeo’s prep work told POLITICO. “He understands the gravity of the challenge before him.”
While juggling his day job at the CIA, the person said, Pompeo has been participating in briefing sessions at the State Department, reading thick stacks of material, much of it country-specific, and participating in mock Q&As to prepare for a sure-fire grilling before U.S. senators. He’s also talking to a range of people at the State Department, including career civil and foreign service staffers who felt sidelined under former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.
It’s part of Pompeo’s mixture of crash course and charm offensive as he prepares for a Thursday confirmation hearing before a closely divided Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Although no one thinks Pompeo has had a political conversion, he seems determined to gain some Democratic votes — and demonstrate more respect for his predecessors and future employees than did Tillerson, who never spoke at length to either Kerry or Clinton and who alienated his department’s rank and file.
Former U.S. officials say that — in both his confirmation hearing and in the job, if he is confirmed — Pompeo will have to find a way to get along with both Donald Trump and a diplomatic crew that the Republican president disdains.
“Pompeo’s most challenging task is to keep the trust of the president while also earning the trust of the State Department bureaucracy,” said Ilan Goldenberg, who served at State in the Obama administration. “If he is too hard-line and ideological, he will not earn the trust of the diplomats and won’t be an effective negotiator and spokesman on the international stage. But he also has to avoid the perception that he has been co-opted by the ‘softies’ at Foggy Bottom or he’ll lose influence in the West Wing.”
Pompeo has managed to stay in Trump’s good graces for more than a year — something a shrinking number of other presidential aides can say. And by all accounts, he also is eager to serve as secretary of state, despite the largely painful experience of Tillerson, who clashed with the president and never earned his department’s trust.
Pompeo, a former Army officer who graduated first in his class at West Point and has a degree from Harvard Law School, actually began quiet preparations for the job well before Trump fired Tillerson in mid-March — seeking advice about the position while sizing up potential deputies.
During their talk, Clinton advised Pompeo to stem the flight of career diplomats who quit under Tillerson, according to a person familiar with the call.
But standing between Pompeo and Foggy Bottom are dozens of hostile Democratic senators, and at least one Republican — raising questions about his ability to win majority approval from the Foreign Relations Committee, which is divided 11-10 in favor of Republicans.
Second half at Politico
Welcome to the #resistance Mike Pompeo!
No, but seriously, shouldn't Clinton be lobbying friends to keep him the F out of state?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
