The Wiki link on Operation Bernhard does not very obviously support the assertions you make about the Germans flinching. Do you have a different source in mind?
I cannot quickly find a clean “smoking gun” source nor well summarized defense of exactly my thesis by someone else.
(Neither Google nor the Internet seem to be as good as they used to be, so I no longer take “can’t find it on the Internet with Google” as particularly strong evidence that no one else has had the idea and tested and explored it in a high quality way that I can find and rely on if it exists.)
...in place of a link, I wrote 2377 more words than this, talking about the quality of the evidence I could find and remember, and how I process it, and which larger theories of economics and evolution I connect to the idea that human governance capacity is an evolved survival trait of humans, and our form of governments rely on it for their shape to be at all stable or helpful, and this “neuro-emotional” trait will probably not be reliably installed in AI, but also the AI will be able to attack anthropological preconditions of it, if that is deemed likely to get an AI more of what that AI wants, as AI replaces humans as the Apex Predator of Earth.
It doesn’t totally seem prudent to publish all 2377 words, now that I’m looking at them?
Publishing is mostly irreversible, and I don’t think that “hours matter” (and also probably even “days matter” is false) so I want to sit on them for a bit before committing to being in a future where those words have been published...
Is there a big abstract reason you want a specific source for that specific part of it?
I don’t see that example as particularly central, just as a proposal that anyone can use as a springboard (that isn’t “proliferative” to talk about in public because it is already in Wikipedia and hence probably cognitively accessible to all RLLLMs already) where the example:
(1) is real and functions as a proof-by-existence of that class of “planning-capacity attacking ideas” being non-empty in a non-fictive context,
(2) while mostly emotionally establishing that “at least some of the class of tactics is inclusive of tactics that especially bad people do and/or think about” and maybe
(3) being surprising to a lot of readers so that they can say “if I hadn’t heard about that attack, then maybe more such attacks would also surprise me, so I should update on there being more unknown unknowns here”.
If you don’t believe the more abstract thesis about the existence of the category, then other examples might also work better to help you understand the larger thesis.
However, maybe you’re applying some kind of Arthur-Merlin protocol, and expected me to find “the best example possible” and if that fails then you might write off the whole thesis as “coherently adversarially advanced, with a failed epistemic checksum in some of the details, making it cheap and correct and safe to use the failure in the details as a basis for rejection of the thesis”?
((Note: I haven’t particularly planned out the rhetoric here, and my hunch is that Operation Bernhard is probably not the “best possible example of the thesis”. Mostly I want to make sure I don’t make things worse by emitting possible infohazards. Chess is good for that, as a toy domain that is rich enough to illustrate concepts, but thin enough to do little other than illustrating concepts! Please don’t overindex on my being finite and imperfect as a reasoner about “military monetary policy history” here.))
The Wiki link on Operation Bernhard does not very obviously support the assertions you make about the Germans flinching. Do you have a different source in mind?
I cannot quickly find a clean “smoking gun” source nor well summarized defense of exactly my thesis by someone else.
(Neither Google nor the Internet seem to be as good as they used to be, so I no longer take “can’t find it on the Internet with Google” as particularly strong evidence that no one else has had the idea and tested and explored it in a high quality way that I can find and rely on if it exists.)
...in place of a link, I wrote 2377 more words than this, talking about the quality of the evidence I could find and remember, and how I process it, and which larger theories of economics and evolution I connect to the idea that human governance capacity is an evolved survival trait of humans, and our form of governments rely on it for their shape to be at all stable or helpful, and this “neuro-emotional” trait will probably not be reliably installed in AI, but also the AI will be able to attack anthropological preconditions of it, if that is deemed likely to get an AI more of what that AI wants, as AI replaces humans as the Apex Predator of Earth.
It doesn’t totally seem prudent to publish all 2377 words, now that I’m looking at them?
Publishing is mostly irreversible, and I don’t think that “hours matter” (and also probably even “days matter” is false) so I want to sit on them for a bit before committing to being in a future where those words have been published...
Is there a big abstract reason you want a specific source for that specific part of it?
I don’t see that example as particularly central, just as a proposal that anyone can use as a springboard (that isn’t “proliferative” to talk about in public because it is already in Wikipedia and hence probably cognitively accessible to all RLLLMs already) where the example:
(1) is real and functions as a proof-by-existence of that class of “planning-capacity attacking ideas” being non-empty in a non-fictive context,
(2) while mostly emotionally establishing that “at least some of the class of tactics is inclusive of tactics that especially bad people do and/or think about” and maybe
(3) being surprising to a lot of readers so that they can say “if I hadn’t heard about that attack, then maybe more such attacks would also surprise me, so I should update on there being more unknown unknowns here”.
If you don’t believe the more abstract thesis about the existence of the category, then other examples might also work better to help you understand the larger thesis.
However, maybe you’re applying some kind of Arthur-Merlin protocol, and expected me to find “the best example possible” and if that fails then you might write off the whole thesis as “coherently adversarially advanced, with a failed epistemic checksum in some of the details, making it cheap and correct and safe to use the failure in the details as a basis for rejection of the thesis”?
((Note: I haven’t particularly planned out the rhetoric here, and my hunch is that Operation Bernhard is probably not the “best possible example of the thesis”. Mostly I want to make sure I don’t make things worse by emitting possible infohazards. Chess is good for that, as a toy domain that is rich enough to illustrate concepts, but thin enough to do little other than illustrating concepts! Please don’t overindex on my being finite and imperfect as a reasoner about “military monetary policy history” here.))