pull down to refresh
It will always be leaky as long as it's connected
Indeed, but it's also evident that we're trending towards a splinternet accordingly.
The internet is still inherently a physical thing, infrastructure like cables and datacenters. Militaries exist to inflict state will on physical infrastructure.
Until we can communicate with high-bandwidth telepathy, digital security zones will increasingly reflect physical boundary.
loss of functionality at that layer has the most negative impact
This is really the only thing that slows the splintering, I'm sure China would cut off the the world at large from the domestic internet if not for the economic ramifications.
Russia famously had a botched block against a bunch of western IP's, just because it was botched though doesn't mean these efforts will stop, they'll just iterate.
I'm not sure how well the UAE's firewall works, only learned of it recently, but in any case policy alone keeps the bulk of the population chilled. Those that are undeterred within their physical security zone face physical risk over digital presence.
For now they have to boil the frog slowly, but just because the state can never have perfect control doesn't mean they won't iteratively accumulate meaningfully more control than they have now.
Satellite constellations throw a little more chaos into the chaos vs. order equilibrium, now submarines cutting cables matters a little less, which is also why those are themselves national security objectives for the major powers. But also think about special operators in enemy territory using sat phones in the 80s... extrapolate that forward to a backpack sized dish that can bridge operations into a countries gooey center and bypass the hardened shell.
the individual is a liability as ideology/narrative/propaganda is more impactful than ever
I think that's mostly for show to firm up the gooey center domestically, not from domestic actors, but coordinated foreign adversaries operating within the physical security zone.
How many servers does China run within our borders under shell corporations, backdoored appliances, etc? Remember the SIM farm in NYC a year or so ago? It's those kinds of resources that keep the state up at night, not individuals. Weaker states are more susceptible to individual actions than global powers with a large intelligence apparatus, but as for major powers, as long as you are in their physical security zone they know what you're doing and can roll up at any time.
This is really the only thing that slows the splintering
Yes. It may be the thing that prevents complete breakup - after all, growth is a lot harder if there is only an internal market. But even if it doesn't, the art of magically making things cross borders against the will of the one in charge is as old as the first person in charge to ever will such a thing. It's much easier digitally because transmission == copy. Remember stuxnet.
I'll take your word for foreign adversaries causing the majority of sleepless nights, for now.
Yeah doomer is the wrong word - perhaps it should be AI-alarmist, in the most pragmatic meaning of it. Not "we're doomed", but "this is a serious problem that needs to get solved".
With Hassabis I feel like it's all more a hypothetical collateral damage thing that is acceptable to him because we will have AGI, and with both Amodei and Altman I feel they just want to capitalize on it where the only difference between the two is whether they actually believe what they are saying. Of all these, I have the most sympathy for Musk's posture. Too bad he distracted himself with politics last year, it visibly impacted Grok's long tail.
I don't see how a digital security zone makes a real difference at the scale of nationstate, let alone hemisphere. It will always be leaky as long as it's connected and the outer layer of a security solution is always the weakest while having the most negative impact, exactly because loss of functionality at that layer has the most negative impact. The functionality vs security tradeoff simply prevents scaling in scope.
Things like firewalls or export controls or sanctions, let alone conventional warfare against other states, are inefficient. They are not long-term solutions and they increase future risk. Also, the granularity of "the enemy" shrinks in tandem with the granularity of "sovereignty" and with AI, even dumb af LLMs, individual sovereignty is now in reach for the masses.
But the individual is a liability as ideology/narrative/propaganda is more impactful than ever, that's the first thing that changed 2 decades ago with the mass adoption of the internet. But there hasn't been a working defensive answer to that, at all. The real threat is not some LLM, it's the beliefs of those that operate it.