“I only speak English because I came from a country where people were treating Jews as others, and now I’m being othered here, and it sucks. It’ll be nice if one of my family’s generation didn’t have to go to a new country and learn a new language.”
In case you're wondering, she's talking about the Soviet Union. Every fucking time, man...
So that way most of the actual “thinking” is being done by a human brain somewhere else. Then the machine learning control mechanism just takes that and uses it to know what to do.
Yes, I can see that too. The AI in that scenario would be kind of like the motions we perform "automatically" once we've learned some skill like playing the piano -- while the conscious mind is focused on other things like "what interpretation do I want to give this passage," etc.
A good Leninist lesson here. The masses usually articulate their concrete, material experience according to some form given them by the ruling class, and they often change that articulation very slowly if at all. Hence the need for a vanguard party to give those same masses proper direction and articulation.
armoured vehicles and air superiority are the next most significant in modern war, and infantry comes a distant third.
That's not entirely true. To actually hold an area, you need infantry, hence why all warfare ultimately comes down to a ground assault. Bombing campaigns kill (murder) civilians and destroy infrastructure, but it's harder to take out soldiers that way: since by the time your planes get there, most of the men and equipment will be dispersed and spread out. World War II proved this, and the lesson has been reiterated many times, notably in Korea and in Yugoslavia.
From what I understand, the idea of bombers and missiles coming out en masse and wiping out the enemy is largely a creation of Hollywood. In actual military tactics, air power is considered a "force multiplier," i.e., it enables you to attack or defend as if with more men. Armor is also not nearly as invincible as often assumed. Its tracks are its weak point, and once immobilized it becomes very vulnerable -- basically a standing artillerypiece. It is for this reason not very useful in urban fighting.
A difference between drones and robot soldiers is that drones are really not new technology. Radio control of various types of flying machines has been around, in one form or another, since World War I; and drones have been used, albeit in a limited function, in World War II and most wars since. What makes them, in the 21st century, suddenly an important weapon is the miniaturization of camera technology (so the drone operator can guide the craft as if he were in the air), and the development of things like FPV control systems. But the remote-controlled flying machine is in fact old and tested technology. Fibre-optic drones are in some ways even simpler, though the system of relaying control signals is exotic; for the concept of a craft connected to its operator by a cable is a reversion to pre-radio technology.
A machine which can walk and balance like a human, on the other hand, is much more complex and "experimental" -- the more so if it is equipped with machine learning. People have been trying to build such things since complex clockwork was developed, and probably before, and the result has always been unsatisfactory; simply because walking and balancing on two legs is a much more complicated matter than it appears. The human brain, as probably the world's most complex and astonishing computer -- and the only "machine" which makes tools in its own likeness -- manages it all. Whether humanoid robot soldiers are possible depends on whether we have finally been able to turn the corner and make a machine with something like our own balance system and situational awareness, something that can't easily be tripped or defeated. (I can imagine "tiger traps" of the kind used by the People's Army of Vietnam during their war with the US imperialists being quite effective; maybe even being built into city streets). Otherwise, something like a small remote-controlled tracked vehicle seems to me more likely.
"Nice argument, however I have already portrayed myself as the stoic, rational CHAZ enjoyer, and you as the emotional, sobbing defender of 800 million people lifted out of poverty"
"Jewish financiers are responsible for the suffering in the Warsaw ghetto." Except worse, because capitalists of whatever ethnicity should get gulag-ed, while Hamas, though by no means a perfect organization, is actually fighting back against oppression.
They've been around for years, and they used to be absolutely, though unintentionally, hilarious. You'd have self-proclaimed anarchists arguing, with a complete straight face, that Mussolini was "very progressive, even if he did run a dictatorship;" saying that "tankies make fun of us for never getting anything done, but have they heard of CHAZ?" and so on. If I remember correctly, they were big believers in the Ghost of Kiev. They've fallen off from that early wildness, but they still manage to come through from time to time with some new bit of liberal insanity.
In case you're wondering, she's talking about the Soviet Union. Every fucking time, man...