With the help of Derek Robertson
By now, it is generally accepted that the future of war unfolds in real time in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
For years, simmering fighting between Vladimir Putin’s government and its NATO-friendly neighbor has created a testing ground information warfare and cybercrime.
And now that the conflict has turned into an open military battle, it has played out on Twitter and on satellite imagery using new technologies like no other modern war.
But the future could also be insanely slow, especially when it comes to the US Department of Defense procurement system.
As my colleague Lee Hudson and I reported in a piece todaymilitary leaders and bureaucrats complain that many of their efforts to provide new technology to help Ukraine fend off a Russian invasion have become bogged down in a process of Pentagon assistance that is still too cumbersome and bureaucratic. An effort that started in April with an old fashioned information request now the process seems to drag on until the summer.
Technologies waiting in the wings include promising new satellite connection communication tools for Ukrainian soldiers, radars that enhance the Ukrainian military’s ability to track and defeat Russian missiles or tanks, and next-level drones that are easier to use to collect intelligence and defeat Russian formations.
One Pentagon Organization who expressed disappointment on pace is the Defense Innovation Division, a Silicon Valley outpost established in 2015 to bypass the traditional acquisition system and gain access to the most innovative technologies.
Our reports have shown that despite its desire for new combat technologies, the Department of Defense is reluctant to ship unproven technology that has not been used by the US military or does not have proper military testing or training manuals.
One big fear: The Pentagon will dump new systems into Ukraine — and spend untold sums of taxpayer dollars — on high-tech equipment that will eventually be thrown away because it is useless or falls into the wrong hands.
“Systems that require serious training or do not have developed training packages are more complex,” Pentagon spokeswoman Jessica Maxwell said. “Similarly, the intensity of this combat creates significant maintenance issues, especially for systems that have not been secured for combat.”
Scientists and philosophers argue whether artificial intelligence can become “intelligent”. because before the technology really existed, but there is a much closer question: what impact does today’s humanoid AI have on our inner life?
Washington Post A recent interview with a Google engineer who made sure the company’s artificial intelligence came to life addresses the second question as much as the first.
AI researchers have long warned that among the most potentially dangerous features of technology may be its psychological impact on humans, who are always striving to project our own values, fears, and prejudices onto otherwise neutral technologies and media. It may not matter if large learning models such as Google’s LaMDA (the one in question here) are reasonable or not if they can effectively convince us otherwise and change our behavior accordingly.
“Machine learning is boring,” said Ben Recht, professor at the University of California at Berkeley with extensive experience in this field. “It’s just pattern matching, but pattern matching can be really powerful” as in the case of using human text databases to create new and “original” content. “There’s been a lot of talk for decades about the dangers of video games, and I’m not sure the conversational agent is much different.”
Covering artificial intelligence law currently being developed in Europe contains numerous measures to mitigate the potential harms of technology, but ultimately how we perceive technology is beyond the reach of regulators. – Derek Robertson
Panic this week in the crypto market leads to another form of concern from the industry as major trading platforms fear potential regulatory action from regulators after withdrawals have been stopped by crypto lender Celsius.
Bjarke Smith-Meyer and Sam Sutton of POLITICO there is a storywriting that “At a fintech conference in Amsterdam last week, participants working at crypto companies whispered about Celsius issues and feared regulatory backlash.”
John Reid Stark, former head of the SEC’s Office of Internet Enforcement, told them the lack of regulation was “staggering”, adding that lending platforms have become “a plague without regulatory oversight and consumer protection.” No fiduciary infrastructure of any kind.”
The choice of the word “plague” leaves little to the imagination when it comes to how regulators might approach the Wild West-like network of cryptocurrency lenders and trading platforms. This network has grown due to a lack of regulatory clarity around cryptocurrencies, but the situation is rapidly changing as the SEC steadily makes adjustments. patchwork that cryptocurrencies are securities and crypto-friendly senators are pushing competing vision it is largely self-regulating. – Derek Robertson
Stay in touch with the entire team: Ben Schrekinger ([email protected]); Derek Robertson[email protected]); Konstantin Kakaes (ur.[email protected]); and Heidi Vogt ([email protected]). Follow us on Twitter @DigitalFuture.