> contributed to the research, which was supported by funding from the Air Force Office of Scientific Research.
I guess when they're not busying bombing train infrastructure in Iran they have some money left to give to some propagandizing about AI. Always try to stay on top of the game!
Yes, it's called the nuclear umbrella, Potsdam '45 and the fact that the Soviets are out of the equation. Even with the Soviets in place the Americans had no second thoughts about getting rid of Bretton Woods when it suited them.
They missed the Iranians employed into bombing OpenAI's datacenter in Abu Dhabi, at least going by Iran's latest press release. [1] I think that should count as AI-related work.
> girls who post and then remove selfies from their services in order to market to demographics who were likely experiencing depression and negative feelings about their body image.
This is just pure evil, and I'm not using this as a metaphor, it is evil by definition. I wonder how do the people behind these decisions sleep at night? Don't they have kids of their own? How can they look at their kids' faces knowing that they've deliberately caused harm to some other kids?
The non-war obsessed normies are something to behold, that's for sure. Most probably the GP has never looked at the FPV videos coming out of Ukraine, or maybe he somehow thinks that US soldiers are Terminator-like machines who would have nothing to fear from aerial drones.
whooptie doo, you're special and those who disagree with you are normies. that doesn't make a good argument, neither does misrepresenting what I said. and all your speculation about me there is wrong (your argument shouldn't be about me but about the topic anyways?).
I'm sure US troops will be plenty terrified, and there will be lots of casualties, you just made that argument on my behalf so you could have something to win. The amount of fear or the level of sheer human carnage on either side does not affect the outcome. Like I said in my post, if these factors affect political will in the US, Iran will win, if not then US military will not take very long, despite the costs, to achieve victory. It will not be defeated on grounds of "drones", terrain, Iran being well prepared, or oil prices.
You have to be a normie to believe that a ground operation as currently envisaged by the US political leaders would be anything else but a suicide mission. This is not about “winning arguments on the internet” or some such, because in the end these arguments do not matter, it’s a basic matter of not sending men to die in a suicide mission.
Unless this being a suicide mission isn’t the stated goal of the current US political leaders, but that’s another discussion.
you have a broad definition of what a suicide mission is. Are you saying only US soldiers will die? Was Normandy a suicide mission? Does the US not have superior air-power, even though Iranians have more soldiers and home field advantage?
I never claimed it won't be carnage or that casualties would be low. And btw, "normie" is not the insult you think it is, it only serves your ego.
We can talk about the strategic goals, but strategy isn't what makes a mission "sucidie", it's when the only outcome of the mission is everyone involved will die that you call it a suicide mission. If there is a reasonable chance that a significant number of troops won't die, it isn't "suicide".
Cuba is a relatively small island, and (by area) it's mostly agrarian. Conventional bombing campaign on the industrial and urban centres would send them back to the Iron Age in a matter of days. Which is why this whole scenario is absurd, Cuban leaders aren't about to start a war.
reply