#AI and Warfare – Oxford Panel Discussion

A conversation with Professor Stephen Rosen and Professor Shivaji Sondhi on artificial intelligence in warfare. The talk stays on the surface, not offering deep insights, but it does stimulate thinking, which is maybe its purpose. We are already well down this path.

Some of my takeaways: #AI in war functions as a force multiplier, but the key question is how nations deploy it. Ukraine shows that both sides use similar technology. A major limitation of current AI use is that it is too expensive to be integrated into cheap drones and autonomous weapons. To bypass communication jamming, control is shifting to space, which then requires AI to operate in space as well.

A stopgap is drone relays flying at high altitudes, but these become targets themselves. Simple autonomy (using basic image recognition) is being developed to maintain functionality when communications are jammed, for both targeting and navigation. With this we highlight the issue of autonomy and decision-making, if AI is to be increasingly used to managing battles, then the advantage will go to those who trust it most. Authoritarian states embrace AI more readily, as they do not trust their own people. This “first strike advantage” AI brings increases instability in conflicts.

This rises, the issue of why the U.S. Fails in War. The answer might be simple, the U.S. often struggles in warfare due to a lack of understanding of other cultures, leading to psychological biases in strategy. AI might help identify these blind spots by analysing what people actually fear. However, there’s scepticism, will AI truly improve decision-making, or will it reinforce existing biases?

Vulnerabilities and decision-making, it is already used in autonomous machine decision-making for missile defence, where human response times are too slow. People are more ready to accept AI in a defensive role because it does not involve direct human casualties, but history shows that similar systems have been used offensively, sometimes dangerously. The Soviet Union’s use of automated nuclear systems for attack nearly led to disaster. The increasing reliance on AI in space-based “defence” systems raises concerns about whether similar failures could occur today.

Let’s step back from that brink, to look at the future of AI in war in wider senses. In the near future, the battlefield is moving to space, where communication for AI-controlled drones and communications is increasingly shifting. Ukraine’s use of Starlink: SpaceX’s Starlink satellite network has been crucial for Ukraine, allowing drones and soldiers to maintain communication even under heavy Russian jamming.

A scary likely future scenario is AI-controlled satellites managing drone vs. drone warfare, where AI systems fight each other in a logistics and targeting battle, without direct human involvement. This creates new arms control challenges, how do you regulate AI-driven weapons? How do you verify compliance when AI systems operate in secret?

AI and economic warfare: #Capitalism vs. #Socialism, AI is also shifting the balance of power between capitalist and socialist economies. For example: China’s “social credit system”: AI-driven surveillance and data collection allow China to exert social planing while improving resource allocation. Silicon Valley’s AI in finance: AI algorithms in the U.S. optimize high-frequency trading, automating stock market decisions and reinforcing economic inequalities.

Could AI reshape military-industrial production? AI could redefine supply chains, making economies less dependent on foreign production. AI-powered cyber warfare could cripple rival economies without direct military engagement. This raises a final question, will AI-driven economies favour authoritarian or democratic paths?

Conclusion, the future of AI in war, the panel discussion raises far more questions than answers. Will AI create more stable deterrence, or increase instability by enabling preemptive strikes? Will “democracies” fall behind authoritarian regimes in AI warfare due to ethical constraints? How will AI shape the future of economic and military power?

The only certainty #AI is already changing the nature of warfare, and we are not in any way prepared for this.

#Oxford

Socialism and Capitalism

#Socialism is a socio-economic path where the production (factories, mines, machinery, tools, raw materials, land, buildings, means of transport, etc.) are owned and controlled by the public. The goal is to create a basic equitable distribution of wealth and power by reducing the disparities seen in capitalist societies. Socialism abolishes private control of the means of production, to transition to a system where goods and services are produced for use rather than profit. The guiding economic principle of socialism is “from each according to their ability, to each according to their work.”

Public Ownership: Big industries and resources are owned and managed by the people, democratic governance and cooperatives.

Economic Planning: Planning is used to allocate resources efficiently and equitably. With the digital transition and #4opens technology, this becomes practical.

Social Welfare: Social programs like healthcare, education, and social security ensure a basic standard of living for all people.

Reduced Income Inequality: The gap between the rich and the poor is reduced.

Democratic Control: Workers and the public control the economic decision-making processes.

Where #capitalism is an economic system run for private ownership of the means of production and profit. This includes capital accumulation, competitive markets, a price system, private property, and wage labour.

Private Property: Individuals and corporations own and control the means of production, and thus survival.

Market Economy: Goods and services are produced for and traded in competitive markets, where prices are determined by supply and demand. In today’s world, this means strong monopolistic control for private power and profit.

Profit Motive: The driving force behind economic activity is individual greed and the pursuit of profit.

Capital Accumulation: The accumulation of capital is central to economic growth and expansion. This leads to huge “external damage”, that’s the degradation of the poor and the environment we all live in.

Wage Labour: Workers sell their labour to owners of capital in exchange for wages. Over the last 40 years, this has seen a widening disparity.

It should be obverse to us all that capitalism leads to inequality and exploitation. Some Marxist theory:

Exploitation: In capitalism, workers do not receive the full value of their labour. Instead, the surplus value (the difference between what workers produce and what they are paid) is appropriated by capitalists as profit. We can see this plainly happening over the last 40 years.

Alienation: Workers are alienated from the products of their labour, the labour process, their fellow workers, and their own human potential because they work primarily for wages rather than for personal fulfilment or communal benefit. We have no idea how production happens anymore, our “economy” is a god we worship.

Inequality: Capitalism concentrate wealth and power in the hands of a few, leading to significant social and economic inequalities. This builds social strife.

Instability: Capitalist economies push cycles of boom and bust, leading to periodic crises of overproduction and under consumption.

Means of Production The means of production are the physical, non-human inputs used for the production of economic value. This includes factories, machinery, tools, raw materials, land, and buildings. In a capitalist society, these are owned by private individuals and corporations.

Exploitation refers to how capitalists extract surplus value from workers. Workers produce more value through their labour than the wages they are paid; this excess value is taken by the capitalists as profit.

Surplus value is the difference between the value produced by labour and the actual wage paid to the labourer. It is a fundamental concept in Marxist economics, describing how capitalists generate profit by exploiting workers.

Capital refers to wealth in the form of money or assets that are used to produce more wealth. This includes investments in factories, machinery, raw materials, and labour.

Class struggle is the conflict between classes in society, primarily between the bourgeoisie (owners of the means of production) and the proletariat (working class). This struggle is the driving force of historical development in Marxist theory.

Social Democracy vs. Socialism

Social democracy advocates for a mix of capitalism and socialism. It supports a market economy, but with significant government intervention to ensure social justice and equity. Policies include welfare programs, labour rights, and regulation of markets to reduce inequalities and provide public services.

Socialism transitions away from capitalism, to abolish private ownership of the means of production altogether. The goal is to establish a classless, stateless society where resources and wealth are distributed according to need.

Communism is the final stage of #Marxist theory, where the state has withered away, and a classless, stateless, and moneyless society has emerged. All means of production are owned communally, and goods and services are distributed based on need rather than market dynamics. The guiding principle is “from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.”

To actually move on this path, we would need a #Revolution, to overthrow one class by another. In Marxist terms, a socialist revolution involves the working class (proletariat) overthrowing the capitalist class (bourgeoisie) and establishing a socialist state as a transition to communism. This process entails significant social and economic upheaval to replace capitalist structures with socialist ones. Understanding these concepts provides a clearer path for ongoing debates and action.

Would Socialism Work?

There are meany, messy paths, but let’s look at ideas. Whenever #socialism is discussed, there’s a flurry of objections, claiming it’s unworkable and impractical. Many of these objections stem from misconceptions or simple falsehoods. One common misconception is that socialism lacks the capacity for #innovation. Let’s walk this path to see what we find.

Socioeconomic Systems and Innovation:

Firstly, let’s clarify something: capitalism, socialism, or any other “-ism” don’t inherently produce anything. Workers are the ones who create products and innovations. These “-isms” shape who gets paid and how resources are distributed. Under capitalism, the driving force for “innovation” is profit. If something isn’t profitable, in the end it won’t get funded, even if it is need to save lives or benefit wider society.

Socialism’s Driving Factors for Innovation:

In contrast, socialism builds for human need and creativity over profit. While some social surplus must be accounted for, it can be done without the profit-seeking motive. In a socialist system, innovation is driven by the #humanist desire to build social meaning and to meet simple social needs to improve the quality of life in general, rather than lining the pockets of a few exploitative shareholders.

Public Sector and Innovation:

Not surprisingly, many of the innovations we rely on today came from government-funded projects, not the private sector. From touch screens to the internet, satellites to vaccines, much of the foundational research and development is done with public funding. This demonstrates that innovation isn’t something exclusive to capitalism; in fact, it happens in spite of it in the current mess.

Education, Innovation, and Profit:

Education is a crucial factor in fostering innovation, yet under capitalism, access to quality education is limited by financial barriers. In contrast, socialist policies prioritize free education at all levels, ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to develop their creative potential and shared #humanism.

Automation and Capitalism:

#Automation, while promising greater productivity, poses a threat under capitalism. As machines replace human labour, workers are laid off, made poor, to cut costs and maximize profits. This leads to a paradox where increased productivity doesn’t benefit the people, as they lose their jobs and thus the purchasing power that drives capitalism in the first place, a mess.

Automation and Socialism:

In a socialist system, automation is used to reduce the need for human labour without displacing workers. Instead of working long hours, people enjoy shorter workdays while automation picks up the productivity slack. With human needs prioritized over profit, automation serve to benefit society as a whole.

Conclusion:

Socialism offers a historical, viable alternative to capitalism’s shortcomings. By prioritizing human needs, innovation through social investment, and horizontal access to education and resources, socialism lays the groundwork for a sustainable and prosperous future. Rather than succumbing to the limitations of capitalism, let’s explore the possibilities of a different world and work towards a society where innovation serves humanistic ends, not only profit for a few exploitative assholes.

To be a part of building this different world https://opencollective.com/open-media-network