Editing Openai/693e3237-e0a8-8009-9b13-5dc0743b3d0c (section)

=== Assistant: Short answer: a surprising amount of ISAC is already technically feasible today, but not as a single, unified, autonomo… ===
Short answer: a surprising amount of ISAC is already technically feasible today, but not as a single, unified, autonomous system the way The Division portrays it. Even with unlimited funding, the main blockers aren’t money—they’re integration, reliability, autonomy limits, ethics, and trust.

Below is a grounded, real-world breakdown.

==== Roughly 60–70% of ISAC’s depicted capabilities are achievable today or with near-term tech ====
0–10% is truly science-fiction
The rest exists in pieces but breaks down at scale or under real chaos.

==== ### ====

ISAC’s constant monitoring of agents’ vitals is already here.

Current reality:
* Smartwatches track: - Heart rate - Blood oxygen - ECG - Stress levels
* Military-grade wearables can monitor: - Hydration - Fatigue - Heat injury risk
* Battlefield IoT systems already transmit vitals to command centers

What’s missing:
Reliability under combat conditions (blood, shock, trauma confuse sensors).

Verdict: Fully feasible, already deployed in limited military and emergency contexts.

===== “Hostiles detected.” =====

Current reality:
* AI-assisted video analysis can: - Detect humans - Identify weapons - Track movement patterns
* Acoustic gunshot detection exists (ShotSpotter)
* Drones + computer vision already assist troops

Limitations:
* Urban clutter
* False positives
* Occlusion (walls, smoke, darkness)
* Hard to determine intent

ISAC’s accuracy and confidence are exaggerated.

Verdict: Feasible, but far less reliable than portrayed.

===== ISAC’s ability to keep agents connected in a collapsed city is very realistic. =====

Current reality:
* Mesh networks
* Satellite uplinks
* Mobile ad-hoc networks (MANETs)
* Encrypted military comms

Used today by:
* Special forces
* Disaster response teams
* Protestors and journalists in blackouts

Verdict: 100% feasible.

===== ISAC locking or unlocking SHD tech is plausible. =====

Real analogs:
* Hardware attestation
* Secure enclaves
* Kill-switches in military drones
* Zero-trust architectures

But:
* Total lockout based on rule violation is dangerous
* In real life, humans override these systems constantly

Verdict: Technically feasible, politically controversial.

===== ISAC combining: =====
* Surveillance
* Infrastructure data
* Agent reports
* Civilian systems

This already exists in intelligence agencies—but not cleanly.

Problem:
Data fusion works well in stable environments. It collapses under:
* Missing data
* False reports
* Sensor loss
* Adversarial deception

Verdict: Possible, but fragile.

==== ### ====

ISAC assigns objectives dynamically.

Today:
* AI can suggest priorities
* Predict resource needs
* Optimize logistics

But cannot:
* Understand moral tradeoffs
* Interpret human context well
* Adjust strategy creatively under chaos

Human commanders still make final calls.

Verdict: Decision-support AI yes. Autonomous commander AI no.

===== ISAC flags agents as “Rogue.” =====

This is where realism drops sharply.

In reality:
* Determining disloyalty requires: - Context - Intent - Chain of command review
* AI cannot reliably infer motive
* False positives would be catastrophic

Automated loyalty enforcement is extremely dangerous.

Verdict: Mostly fictional, intentionally so.

==== ### ====

ISAC seems to know:
* Who is hostile
* Where threats are
* What’s happening citywide

This is not achievable even with unlimited funding.

Why:
* Sensors fail
* Humans lie
* Environments are chaotic
* Adversaries adapt
* AI cannot see intent

ISAC’s confidence is a narrative abstraction.

===== This is the big one. =====

A system that:
* Operates independently
* Cannot be compromised
* Is trusted in life-and-death decisions
* Functions during total collapse

…does not exist and likely never will.

The obstacles aren’t technical—they’re human.
* Trust
* Accountability
* Legitimacy
* Abuse prevention

==== ISAC is believable because: ====
* Every individual component exists
* Military doctrine already trends this way
* We are comfortable outsourcing judgment to systems

What The Division does is compress decades of messy human oversight into a clean AI voice.

==== If a real-world ISAC existed today, it would: ====
* Be wrong often
* Require constant human intervention
* Be distrusted by operators
* Be exploited by adversaries
* Create massive ethical controversy

Which, interestingly, aligns with the franchise’s themes.

==== ISAC is not futuristic technology—it’s futuristic ''authority''. ====

The tech is mostly here.
What isn’t here—and may never be—is the willingness to let a machine decide who is loyal, who is expendable, and what “saving the country” actually means.

If you want, I can also:
* Map ISAC functions to real military programs
* Explore how ISAC would fail in real combat
* Compare ISAC to real-world AI command systems
* Or break down how rogue agents would exploit it in reality