Tag Archives: responsibilities

Part of the Problem

Posted on by
Reply

The Department of Defense, first under the Biden administration, but continuing under the Trump administration, is having far too much trouble deploying “AI weapons,” even figuring out how to use those it has deployed. An illustration of this is this:

The Pentagon has also struggled to find software that can successfully control large numbers of drones, made by different companies, working in coordination to find and potentially strike a target—a key to making the Replicator vision work.

This isn’t so much a software commonality or interoperability problem as it is a problem with bureaucrats giving too much weight to the desires of contractors and their lobbyists, each of whom insist on their own proprietary software. What’s needed here isn’t more money (although sometimes that helps), it’s an operational officer, one fresh in from a combatant command that’s facing current conflicts, being put in charge of AI development and programs. This officer, independent of the lobbyists, needs to write a better requirements document, one that specifies the standards of commonality (not merely interoperability—this is software, not hardware) that each contractor and contractor wannabe must meet in order for their AI package to be considered.

Beyond that, this AI OIC must open his Requests for Proposals far beyond the major contractors and take in RFPs from small businesses and startups—that’s where the ideas and agility exist—then push the development and acquisition pace, eliminating the layers of bureaucrats’ reviews.

Finally, this AI OIC must be willing to spend money on mistakes and dead ends rather than demanding (near) perfection at one stage before moving on to the next.

That’s just the development side. The AI OIC also must have four or five teams of operational officers—again, fresh in from combatant commands—working on tactics and strategies that make use of the four or five leading AI weapons candidates to investigate best uses for integrating these weapons into a combatant command unit’s (at all levels) existing suite of weapons. That tactics and strategies development effort should also lead to adjustments in those units’ existing tactics and those commands’ existing strategies, even their existing suites of weapons.

There’re just too much bureaucracy and too little operational consideration in the currently extant DoD. SecDef is making progress on the bureaucracy qua bureaucracy, but he’s got a long way to go. It’s time for him to zero in on lethality.

Should We Forgive Barry Bonds?

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the lead-off question The Free Press asked in its Wednesday piece. The article then just beat around the bush on the matter while spilling endless pixels on the marketability of Bonds memorabilia and those of other disgraced baseball players, and on other baseball players alleged (with greater or lesser amounts of supporting data) to have cheated. But Bonds did cheat—he used performance enhancing drugs.

So: should we forgive Barry Bonds? Of course; we should have done so a long time ago. But that doesn’t mean we should forget his cheating. That cheating was of a magnitude—increasing, for instance the number of hits and the number of homeruns he would have gotten absence his PED use—that he has been, and rightly should continue to be, barred from baseball’s Hall of Fame. The stats he accrued from his PED use overshadowed other, honest, players and deprived them of their leading stats.

That some other players similarly cheated, or seriously violated other baseball rules (viz., betting on baseball games) in no way absolves Bonds. The existence of those other cheats and baseball’s spotty record regarding them only point up baseball’s atrociously inconsistent enforcement of its own rules.

And: just to drive home the point, forgiving is not the same as forgetting, and it’s long past time to stop conflating the two.

Political CYA

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal‘s editors waxed opinionated on the matter of government efforts at stifling free speech, centering their wax-on piece on Sundar Pichai’s letter (formally written by an Alphabet lawyer) excusing (the editors generously called it a mea not-so-maxima culpa) Alphabet’s Google’s (read: Pichai’s) mistaken role in censoring Conservative podcasts—purging them from YouTube—during the Wuhan Virus (my term; the editors continue to euphemize with “Covid-19”) situation. The editors also nattered on about the hypocrisy of the Left’s getting on the Trump administration over the Kimmel business compared with the Left’s downplaying of the Biden administration’s role in that Alphabet (et al.) censorship.

What interests me about this editorial, though, is this bit from the penultimate paragraph:

Progressives intimidated companies into believing that if they failed to toe the line on certain issues, enforcement could follow.

This is those companies’ managers—including Mark Zuckerberg, of Meta, whom the editors also cited—conscious choice to be “intimidated.” I’ve written elsewhere in this blog about the flaccid-kneed nature of senior managers, at the pinnacle of their professions, who allow themselves to be so easily managed by others. Men and women of good character would have refused to kowtow and challenged in court any enforcement that might have followed, and won easily (if initially expensively, but long-term much more cheaply) on free speech grounds.

And the editors’ close:

Alphabet’s letter to Judiciary is notable for its commitment that the company “has not and will not empower fact checkers to take action on or label content across the Company’s services.” That’s good to hear, but Google would have done better if its accounting had come before the electoral winds shifted. The company’s letter is an admirable statement of principles. Let’s hope it sticks.

This is a sham shift, not at all a statement of principles. This is merely a political CYA claim, done at the convenience of political winds. There’s no reason to believe it will stick. Pichai already has amply demonstrated the strength of his character, and tomorrow may bring an administration of a different feather.

Stupid, or Dishonest?

Posted on by
Reply

Senator John Fetterman (D, PA) had an exchange with CNN‘s Manu Raju last Wednesday in the aftermath of a Leftist’s murder of Charlie Kirk. It began with Fetterman decrying the Left’s and his own party’s divisive rhetoric:

…just one day prior, people were protesting Trump by calling him the “Hitler of our time.” He condemned comparing anyone, including Trump, to Adolf Hitler and insisted his party must “turn the temperature down.”

Then, this:

“I think you just don’t ever, ever compare anyone to Hitler and those kinds of extreme things,” Fetterman said. “Now, look what happened to Charlie Kirk. I mean, you know, the man was shot. Now, we have to turn the temperature down. We can’t compare people to these kinds of figures in history. And this is not an autocrat. This is a product of a democratic election.”
“So you don’t think that Trump is at all shattering any of the norms of democracy in any way?” Raju asked.

Here is a CNN opinionator suggesting that “shattering…norms of democracy” is justification for murdering Conservatives who are associated with President Donald Trump (R).

I have to ask, given the irrelevancy between doing things not normally done but entirely legal, and murder: is Raju really that stupid, or is he really that nakedly dishonest?

Correct Move

Posted on by
Reply

A DoJ paralegal flipped off a National Guard soldier while the paralegal was enroute to her office work. Then she bragged about it to a DoJ security guard on her way into the building. When word got to Attorney General Pam Bondi, her response was prompt and direct. Bondi’s memo to the paralegal said, in part:

Based on your inappropriate conduct towards National Guard service members, your employment with the Department of Justice is hereby terminated, and you are removed from federal service effective immediately[.]

This has two correct moves in the same sentence. The first is the prompt termination of the misbehaving paralegal. The second is especially important: the paralegal is not going to be reassigned somewhere else in the Federal government; she’s barred from Federal employment altogether.

The woman might have gotten away with her reprehensible behavior, even though she would have deserved to be fired, had she not bragged about it. The lack of judgment she showed by bragging about her misbehavior, though, conclusively demonstrates she’s unfit for Federal employment regardless of any specific act of misbehavior.

Bondi’s memo can be read here.