As pointed out by an expert in the field in his analysis, ryan mcbeth,
the phones would not have worked. That room is a SCIF and radio signals
don't penetrate, by design.
Young guys are who do most of the research. Young guys are who walked
in to the gov't and disassembled most of the structures that they are
now trying to rehire the people to rebuild..
As far as AI, it's still subject to GIGO. Would AI have been able to
find data when none was collected? AI would be able to look through the
data that was available faster and if there are clues in the data
collected from the flight path from the ocean launch that could have
contributed to the determination of the aggressor. AI would be best at
looking at _all_ the SIGINT leading up to the launch to see what
nation-state probably coordinated the launch by looking at traffic
patterns. It might have been able to deliver that faster than the
response needed to be made. Unless it was AI that caused the launch.
On 11/5/25 7:42 AM, Steve Jones wrote:
I liked it. The young guy having excess authority in the discussion
didnt feel all that legitimate.
Id like to think we survived many potential catastrophes like this
because level heads prevailed, but I doubt it.
The whole premise of respond back when we dont know who did it was
pretty unnerving and realistically, whats it matter how long it takes
to respond once one hits, the outcome will be the same in the end.
I would hope in the real world those two that brought their phones in
went to prison for the rest of their lives
But had AI been involved, the initial launch more probably would have
been detected, the trajectories would have been calculated faster, the
toll counts would have been instant, the speed at which actionable
data became available and incidental data sets were presented would
have given more time for fruitful human discussion.
On Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 9:20 AM Bill Prince <[email protected]> wrote:
By design. The point was to make you think about it.
bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
On 11/4/2025 6:23 PM, Chuck wrote:
They left it unfinished
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 4, 2025, at 1:16 PM, Robert<[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
If you watched House of Dynamite, it's about as good as our anti-ICBM
shots...
On 11/4/25 11:03 AM, Bill Prince wrote:
How many 9s of reliability are you willing to accept?
99%? That means 1 out of 100.
99.9%? That means 1 out of 1000.
99.99%? That means 1 out of 10,000.
AI is mostly operating in the 50-60% reliability range, which means it's
more-or-less a coin toss.
bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
On 11/4/2025 10:35 AM, Josh Luthman wrote:
It's exactly this short sighted mind set that prevents anything from moving
forward.
--
AF mailing list
[email protected]
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
--
AF mailing list
[email protected]
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
--
AF mailing list
[email protected]
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
