Yes, of course it would be, but if you read the article, you’ll know why it’s not that easy.

That may be up to us: if they think they can get away with it, it will be our task to prove their gamble wrong. That won’t be an easy road, unfortunately.

Pretty sure it’s conmen running the world, with the delusional propping them up

I suppose boxing in a car requires a car each in front and behind?

And yet it is, by any sane account, absolutely critical infrastructure in many places. What a world.

To be honest, it seems to me that are not the CEOs of solar panel companies that belive that solar panel (and other renewable sources) are a drop in replacement for more traditional sources.

Oh no, I definitely agree with you there. The CEOs only care whether there is money to be made and will lie and cheat if they think they can get away with it.

I think the primary gripe with AI is less about having no potential, but about the specific potential for evil being leveraged heavily while “visionaries” lie about or dismiss the (current and foreseeable future) limits for clout and profit.

To use your comparison, CEOs selling solar panels are responding to scepticism about the stability of that supply and its elasticity to fluctuating power demand with vague promises of developing more advanced cells that can operate with less light and throttle the generated power during ebbs in demand. They buy land to install more solar panels, then lobby for the deactivation of other, flexible power sources that could supplement their supply until they can finally start charging more in times of high demand.

They do so because the alternative would be admitting that the product they’re selling isn’t ready for the market they’re trying to enter (or at least not at the scale they’re aiming for) and that the solution to their issues requires different technologies which have not yet been developed. They can’t admit that because it would upset the investors that trusted their vision. As a famous adage suggests, they probably can’t even understand that limit, since their salary depends on not understanding it.

In the same vein, the current CEOs fail (or refuse?) to acknowledge that the generative models today have a fundamental limitation with understanding the semantics behind certain patterns. One infamous phenomenon would be AI hands: We know what a hand is and how it works; a generator can only vaguely imitate the patterns. It doesn’t know “hand” or “finger”, so it just generates some assembly that vaguely fits its training material.

If we consider the broader and ill-defined field of AI, I can believe that some form of semantic modelling technology could provide a way to connect tokens with abstract concepts and enable a type of reasoning that pure token predictors are incapable of. But we first need to acknowledge that limit, and on that front, we’re competing against tech-bros that would rather believe than know and against grifters that would rather sell snake oil than teach medicine.

I’d also endorse calling them Microslop, half because their software seems to be rapidly ensloppifying and half because it pisses off their CEO

The political will is more than just the army.

If I understood correctly, many Russians are or were in favour of the war, which is hardly surprising while they’re not the ones suffering the cost. Even when they do, a populace under the impression that the cost is some sacrifice for a good or necessary war can be quite resilient. And even if they lose faith in the war, there is a certain amount of patience and tolerance.

But the greater that cost becomes, the more that support will erode. The more their lives will be disrupted, the more discontent the regime will have to devote resources to quell or at least smooth over. It probably won’t escalate to the point of open revolt unless the regime is particularly inept, but the greater the tensions and pressure, the more the strategic calculations will shift to alleviating these tensions (precisely to avoid revolt).

For people with a little spare time that might not be able to contribute directly, it’s a low-barrier way to be at least a bit of a nuisance, amplifying the perceived impact of the shortage in ways propaganda can’t so easily handwave away.

Wether such measures have great impact is hard to gauge, particularly while starting but also often in retrospect, because social pressure and dynamics are complicated, war is messy and emotions are hard to calculate. But if it utilises a previously untapped resource (by mobilising people willing to troll the Russian populace), it’s worth a shot.

I’d like to close my argument with a note on strategic commumication: You are absolutely right that keyboard warriors risk far less than actual “might get blown to chunks” fighters. But what does calling it out achieve? Does it help the soldiers to know their international support is useless? Does it help the misguided to tell them they’re worthless? Do you expect those you consider cowards to go “you know, that dude is right, let me uproot my life and risk death to volunteer at a front alien to me”?

By encouraging them to keep trying to be a pain in the ass of imperial aggressors, you might recruit even the reluctant, the lazy, the cowardly to become a sort of “digital guerilla”. They might not be of much use now, but the more people look for places to sting, the greater the chance that someone will find a place where it does actually hurt. Better to have them try something than do nothing.

If that means patting them on the back and going “Sure buddy, you’re helping, keep doing your thing”, that’s worth more than demanding all or nothing from them.

I’m not doing anything. I’m not pretending to do anything. I’m not pretending to be involved at all. I’m not cheerleading this war either. You’re absolutely eviscerating a chickenhawk, blowhard, coward of a strawman.

I’m commenting on an effort to weaken popular support for a war of aggression and how it might be tactically reasonable to also challenge the political will. That’s about the extent of what I can contribute: discuss the affair online in an attempt to get insight into the workings of this war. Civilians need to understand the mechanisms so that they can hold the military accountable.

It’s stupidly shortsighted to pretend that talking about it is worthless. Yes, my comment doesn’t help the troops fighting, bleeding and dying to deny an imperialist aggressor’s claim to their land. But the world, present and future, consists of more than that conflict (hopefully, at least). The lessons learned from that war can be valuable to other conflicts, and it is important that civilians also understand the mechanics of it if they are to hold the military accountable.

It’s also plain ignorant to pretend that war is only fought and won in the trenches. Even long before modern communications, it was understood that the will of the enemy is an objective of war. A victory in the trenches does not guarantee an end to the war nor a lasting peace. Attacks on the enemy’s opponent’s internal stability (not the people, that doesn’t usually work well) help erode that will to continue supporting the war, and also create conditions whereby an eventual peace can bring a noticeable improvement in quality of life that will make the former enemy’s populace more inclined to accept that peace. Yes, it’s not as immediately dangerous and heroic as direct combat, but it amplifies the value of the sacrifice of those who do fight on the ground.

And finally, for many people, direct participation on the frontlines isn’t a possibility. Should those people rather do nothing at all than even try to achieve something? Should they stand aside, watch the conscripts die and say “Look at me, being honest about my complacency”? Would their inaction help the defenders?

Do you genuinely believe that ground combat is the only part of war that matters?

What’s your point here? People who aren’t actively fighting in direct combat shouldn’t discuss the events or participate in any efforts to sabotage the aggressor?

Sounds like bad OPSEC to answer that tbh

The fact that there are gas shortages is already enough of a blow.

When under attack, there is no “enough of a blow”. Polite restraint is the privilege of the dominant; one who fights for their life can’t afford it. Anything that disrupts the aggressor’s will or ability to continue their aggression is fair game.

The only consideration is whether it’s worth the cost. In case of messing with that map, the cost is trivially low. Might as well hope that it undermines support for the war effort. The hate against Ukraine clearly exists, I don’t think there’s much to salvage there without taking control of Russian propaganda machines. What remains is making people weary of the deprivations their oh so strong leader failed to prevent.

Makes sense to use that time to further disrupt the enemy’s populace and hopefully sabotage domestic support further