"AI" seems to be misunderstood

Mohsin77

Senior Member
Registered Member
There's a new article out from the SSQ (an American think tank) and it made me realize how this issue of "AI" is completely misunderstood. They keep focusing on its strategic danger, but don't understand the problem this solution was created for.

The reason why Russia and China have put so much effort into this area, is because the US had a clear advantage in networks ('network centric warfare') which it revealed to the world in 1991. All the required infrastructure (Satellites, AWACS, JSTARs etc.) depend on networks. So Russia/China started focusing on crippling the US's network capabilities.

The problem is that if they can cripple US networks, the US can do the same. Neither side can properly defend their own networks against EW/Cyber and even kinetic capabilities. It is much easier to cripple a network, than to defend it. And this is where AI comes in. The true potential of "AI" is to defeat the paradigm of "network centric warfare," by removing/reducing the need for networks. If Drones, Cruise Missiles and Hypersonic vehicles can autonomously target enemy C4I nodes, they become invulnerable to breaks in the networks.

An "AI" weapon is basically anything (physical or cyber) that you launch with a preset objective and it does not need updates to find and destroy a target that fits its scripted criteria. In any full scale "near peer" conflict between US/China/Russia, the first thing to be targeted will be ALL networks. All the things we take for granted today (the internet, financial networks, cellular networks, electric grids etc.) will all be taken offline. "Networks" will be the first casualties in this new type of war, and this is the battlespace where "AI" is designed to fight in.

Here's the article I cited, and it barely mentions any of this:

Strategic Studies Quarterly: Artificial Intelligence: A Threat to Strategic Stability

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Top