disorderly

As someone with previous defense connections, I’d been wondering when we’d see this.

ITAR has severely restricted access to nav system tech export, but there was always this open question about reckoning position by visual cues rather than GPS + dead reckoning. We all knew it was technically feasible, but we assumed that having “visual” cues was further out because AI at the time wasn’t up to the task.

The answer is the same, though. Nvidia, willing or not, is now a defendant in an unjust war, and must be subpoena’d by the ICC. At a minimum, they should be immediately sanctioned by foundry specialists (like ASML) until they are prepared to account for how, exactly, this tech ended up in a Russian missile.

I think you’re making a strawman argument here. He isn’t arguing that it’s a binary switch that has failed to throw, he’s arguing that we don’t have compelling evidence that the ends justify the means:

In other words, corporate leadership is starting from the premise that AI has (or will) radically change the business, and they’re working backwards from that premise to find the evidence to support this article of faith.

And this is completely true! Supposedly “data informed” organizations are trying to find a yardstick that shows actual, meaningful improvement in business outcomes from AI. In my own organization we have people touting LOC yet again because “big number”, but anyone who’s ever worked in software can tell you it’s an asinine metric to use as a KPI.

It’s inherently unscientific to start with the answer and work backwards to a satisfactory question. His point that this push is coming from the least knowledgeable of real processes- and more closely resembles religious fervor than business acumen- seems to at least warrant consideration.