I believe that's one of Murphy's Laws of Combat. Something about a plan going great until contact with the Enemy. My favorite being three simple words: Friendly Fire Isn't.
Pentagon Plots Digital "Crystal Ball" to "See the Future" in Battle
- Thread starter Andrew Boulton
- Start date
I believe that's one of Murphy's Laws of Combat. Something about a plan going great until contact with the Enemy. My favorite being three simple words: Friendly Fire Isn't.
was a navy electician in nuclear power. some tech reps came aboard and announced a change in an existing casualty response procedure. I said that the change was unsafe and I explained why. they said no, we're going to rely on the safety backups to prevent any further damage. I cited my experience with safety backups failing to operate, and also cited damage that would occur even if the backups worked perfectly. no joy, they didn't even answer me. "this is a done deal." so I played my ultimate weapon. "fine. we only work here, this is your plant and you're the ones that say what goes down. so, make it an order and write it into the procedure, and we'll do exactly what you say." they left, no change. responsibility is a hard thing.
and that's why I don't like this "predictor". "clear up some clutter"? that's insane. every single officer is going to be held responsible for every single piece of data that is ever entered or might have been entered or should have been entered into the system, because some lawyer is going to spend months poring over the recorded data looking for something he can use to nail the commander. "but the PDA said that the bus service wasn't running, you knew or should have known that the girls' school couldn't have been evacuated before you bombed it." simultaneously every time something goes wrong both junior and senior officers are going to be bawling, "but the PDA said!" this thing will increase their responsibility load while simultaneously decreasing their control over it. it'll be a disaster, will someone please just lob a grenade into it.
Flykiller,
I was leaning more toward it, but that cold sea air just washed over the deck of reality. You're right.
I used to be part of our ship's team in the Navy combat sim, in San Diego.
They focused on things like weight of the chaff, and wind speed, and height of the waves, when they programmed it.
All of that is relevant, but not as relevant as ship's speed, turning radius, etc.
Bang on, this is as i see it now a bad idea.
I was leaning more toward it, but that cold sea air just washed over the deck of reality. You're right.
I used to be part of our ship's team in the Navy combat sim, in San Diego.
They focused on things like weight of the chaff, and wind speed, and height of the waves, when they programmed it.
All of that is relevant, but not as relevant as ship's speed, turning radius, etc.
Bang on, this is as i see it now a bad idea.
Renaissance Man
SOC-12
... but a computer is the reigning chess champion.
Although I couldn't tell you this firsthand, I am almost certain that war is not chess. There are simply too many variables.
If they can predict war maneuvers , why not build a machine that can predict history, generate counterfactuals, etc.?
All of this is a symptom of the game theory bull crap that has been floating around the past few decades. Hubris. Pure hubris.
G. Fieendish
SOC-12
And given the various accusations that went on, during said matches... but a computer is the reigning chess champion.
very likely the last one....
(Kasparov's demands, on the Deep Blue/Red teams, during their matches according to some, verged on the point of cheating, & if Deep Blue/Red had been human, would have definitley resulted in a formal protest, followed by Kasparov forfieting the match by default, if not his title, & a possible banning....) .