It's DARPA's mission to go far beyond what can be done today. Back in the day, I pitched a project to them. Sounds like they are totally taken with AI and maybe far too impressed with Silicon Valley. Anyhow, my project didn't get funded, but what they were doing made more sense.
-
and integrates over individual personalities and biases. In the longer term, it is laying a foundation for when AI become AGI and SAI. It is future-oriented work. I hear the call for better support of IR and scholarship in general but I'm not sure it's valid to say this competes.
I understand what they're doing. I just think it's dryly amusing that they're willing to use academic output and expertise indirectly, but not that interested in supporting it. You can understand why an academic in a field like this is not enthused about being a "feeder" to an AI
-
-
Sure, but you want academic IR to be supported by DARPA?
-
Personally I don't like any of this - automation of decision making in war & diplomacy is extremely dangerous - but I think poo-pooing AI is by now extremely shortsighted also very dangerous. That is my agenda here.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.