The number of people who declare they can totally trust what an adversary says because they agree with it is astounding, as though a committed opponent wouldn't do anything if it gained advantage including feinting in a way which seems unadvantegeous to gain long term advantage.
In the end, the only winning move is not to play. If you believe an adversary said something (or "a liar" if you prefer), you ignore it entirely. You make your mind up about what you believe based on evidence, and you decide if you agree with someone based on how well their statement comports with the evidence.
Naturally people will try to fabricate evidence, and even good faith evidence may be unreliable, so you'll have to do your best to access it's veracity. But what the adversary believes or appears to believe is largely immaterial.
If you know more than others, that's great, but in that case please share some of what you know, so the rest of us can learn.
The white-anting by Russia hasn't really triggered this kind of "immune response" - it's hard to know what to do about it, which is of course the entire point.
What would a task force built to oppose the IRA seeding discord online look like? How would it operate? We need that.
This feels like the same kind of vague "rational mysticism." "We don't know what we don't know, and we're such silly humans, therefore...AI will kill us all" is all I can really take from it.
When you come across an adversary, it’s to your benefit to try to bring them to the healthy side of things.
People can be pretty reasonable, and if they’re not then they can be shamed into behaving. If they cannot be shamed, then there’s retribution. If that doesn’t work, then there’s always the option to go full Rambo.
You never want to go full Rambo, but your adversary must understand that it’s an option that’s available to you. I don’t think super AI will be any different as an adversary, but maybe there’s something I haven’t considered.
chasil•1h ago
- Oscar Wilde
globalnode•1h ago