5 ms·

Luckily there are physical limitations. There are practically two ways to arm a drone. Bombs and guns. A small flying drone operating an 9mm pistol has extreme

by vlehto 11y ago

Luckily there are physical limitations. There are practically two ways to arm a drone. Bombs and guns. A small flying drone operating an 9mm pistol has extremely poor accuracy. Especially with multiple shots. If you increase the accuracy, you have to increase the mass. Which makes it bigger target. Currently regular guy with little training and a rifle can probably shoot down a gun wielding drone most of the time before the opposite can happen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqHrTtvFFIs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqHrTtvFFIs Then there are drones with bombs attached to them. One of the most sophisticated is called Hellfire missile. But it's needlessly big and expensive. The quad copter in next video costs 100$ and has payload to carry regular hand grenade. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lb2Tpp3CIoY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lb2Tpp3CIoY You could go RC car route. But you again need a bit of size to conquer stairs. Also it's easier to track where it comes & goes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUXRMDK3r7s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUXRMDK3r7s I'm less worried about government doing bad shit and more worried about private citizens getting nasty. Autonomous flight, GPS navigation, address from google maps and bit of facial recognition. First civilian drone murder is just matter of time. People kill with more ease the further they can be when it's done. I'm guessing this internet privacy thing will seem like child's play when all of sudden everybody wants to hide their physical address. Once that is handled, it's only bit like having rabid dogs with homing device.

erikpukinskis 11y ago
Are you suggesting there is something about drones that makes them fundamentally inaccurate? It would seem to be that advancements in computer vision will solve that problem in short order. Particularly with the VR industry introducing strong incentives for marginal improvements on image-based tracking.
- ugexe 11y ago
  Newton's third law; Hence the comment about drone size/weight and mentioning the small caliber weapon it would have to use.
  - cma 11y ago
    It could expand out a big frill along a plane perpendicular to the shot when firing to transfer the kickback momentum to the air.
    - XorNot 11y ago
      We already drop quarter of a million dollar bombs to kill single targets. Having a drone which turns into a disposable rocket to hit a single target is hardly unfeasible.
      - cma 11y ago
        They are still going to optimize everything, something that can fire X number of shots instead of being a one-off rocket will stretch their budget farther, etc.
        XorNot 11y ago
        Right, but that wasn't the point - the point was that thusfar, the appeals to mechanical limitations of drones as weapons of war have been based on very limited thinking.
webmaven 11y ago
Umm, it doesn't have to have good aim if it can get close enough, eg. a drone small enough to crawl into a person's ear and then fire/detonate.
- ugexe 11y ago
  How big of an explosion do you think a drone small enough to fly through your ear canal is really going to be? How does it even reach its target with such a minuscule mass? The target exhaling would blow it away (and likely destroy it)
  - spdionis 11y ago
    obviously enough to blow your brains out once it's in your ear
    - ugexe 11y ago
      Obviously it would require enough to blow out your brains to be effect. How do you propose to create a drone so tiny and light to also carry the payload required to do that? Just because the payload itself could fit into someones ear doesn't mean the delivery mechanism can, well, actually deliver it
- vlehto 11y ago
  Miniaturization is expensive. And you need some way to get to the victim that doesn't take years. This increases the cost too. Most people would be just "too cheap to kill".
bootload 11y ago
"Luckily there are physical limitations.... I'm less worried about government doing bad shit and more worried about private citizens getting nasty." The MSF Trauma Hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan (3rd October) didn't have this luxury and in the fog of war, [0] 12 MSF medical staff and ten patients were killed. [1],[2] Killing by remote sensing, is indiscriminate. Adding AI is another order of stupidity. References: [0] http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/11/how-tech-fails-led-to-air-force-strike-on-msfs-kunduz-hospital/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/11/how-te... [1] http://www.msf.org.uk/article/in-memoriam-msf-colleagues-killed-in-the-kunduz-trauma-centre-attack http://www.msf.org.uk/article/in-memoriam-msf-colleagues-kil... [2] http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/06/doctors-without-borders-airstrike-afghanistan-us-account-changes-again http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/06/doctors-witho...
- iofj 11y ago
  AI can probably actually improve this particular incident. Having a "rocket" that doesn't explode but drops an AI controlled drone that kills (or even just disables) exactly who is targeted seems like it would be far superior from both the military perspective and the moral perspective. This sort of thing: https://youtu.be/DTqa-NEwUbs?t=94 https://youtu.be/DTqa-NEwUbs?t=94 It could even drop "phone home" over radio, allow the operators to point out the targets at that point, and then fire.
  - wavefunction 11y ago
    We've been hearing about "smart weapons" since the early 90s and they don't seem to be getting any more intelligent as time has gone on.
- sailfast 11y ago
  Not sure that it matters for the sake of argument, but the weapon system used in question was a human-piloted, human-manned AC-130 gunship, not a drone / remote platform
  - bootload 11y ago
narsil 11y ago
> If you increase the accuracy, you have to increase the mass. Which makes it bigger target. Boeing is developing compact portable laser weapons technology that could conceivably be mounted on drones. http://www.livescience.com/52121-laser-weapon-destroys-test-drone.html http://www.livescience.com/52121-laser-weapon-destroys-test-...
- eru 11y ago
  The laser itself might be compact enough. But---where do you get the energy from?
- vlehto 11y ago
  I'd like to point out, that 2 kilowatts is the power AK47 can give as output of kinetic energy when fired at full auto. If you look past the hype, lasers are far from ready.
sawwit 11y ago
In Prof. Tegmark’s presentation at the UN he mentioned the possibility of extremely cheap drones that approach the victim's face very quickly and pierce a bolt into the victim's brain through one of their eyes. That wouldn't require a high precision projectile so it will be easy and cheap to build.
kobayashi 11y ago
You'd probably really like the book The Future of Violence by Benjamin Wittes and Gabriella Blum

by vlehto 11y ago

erikpukinskis 11y ago

Are you suggesting there is something about drones that makes them fundamentally inaccurate? It would seem to be that advancements in computer vision will solve that problem in short order. Particularly with the VR industry introducing strong incentives for marginal improvements on image-based tracking.

ugexe 11y ago
Newton's third law; Hence the comment about drone size/weight and mentioning the small caliber weapon it would have to use.
- cma 11y ago
  It could expand out a big frill along a plane perpendicular to the shot when firing to transfer the kickback momentum to the air.
  - XorNot 11y ago
    We already drop quarter of a million dollar bombs to kill single targets. Having a drone which turns into a disposable rocket to hit a single target is hardly unfeasible.
    - cma 11y ago
      They are still going to optimize everything, something that can fire X number of shots instead of being a one-off rocket will stretch their budget farther, etc.
      - XorNot 11y ago
        Right, but that wasn't the point - the point was that thusfar, the appeals to mechanical limitations of drones as weapons of war have been based on very limited thinking.

webmaven 11y ago

Umm, it doesn't have to have good aim if it can get close enough, eg. a drone small enough to crawl into a person's ear and then fire/detonate.

ugexe 11y ago
How big of an explosion do you think a drone small enough to fly through your ear canal is really going to be? How does it even reach its target with such a minuscule mass? The target exhaling would blow it away (and likely destroy it)
- spdionis 11y ago
  obviously enough to blow your brains out once it's in your ear
  - ugexe 11y ago
    Obviously it would require enough to blow out your brains to be effect. How do you propose to create a drone so tiny and light to also carry the payload required to do that? Just because the payload itself could fit into someones ear doesn't mean the delivery mechanism can, well, actually deliver it
vlehto 11y ago
Miniaturization is expensive. And you need some way to get to the victim that doesn't take years. This increases the cost too. Most people would be just "too cheap to kill".

bootload 11y ago

"Luckily there are physical limitations.... I'm less worried about government doing bad shit and more worried about private citizens getting nasty." The MSF Trauma Hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan (3rd October) didn't have this luxury and in the fog of war, [0] 12 MSF medical staff and ten patients were killed. [1],[2] Killing by remote sensing, is indiscriminate. Adding AI is another order of stupidity. References: [0] http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/11/how-tech-fails-led-to-air-force-strike-on-msfs-kunduz-hospital/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/11/how-te... [1] http://www.msf.org.uk/article/in-memoriam-msf-colleagues-killed-in-the-kunduz-trauma-centre-attack http://www.msf.org.uk/article/in-memoriam-msf-colleagues-kil... [2] http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/06/doctors-without-borders-airstrike-afghanistan-us-account-changes-again http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/06/doctors-witho...

iofj 11y ago
AI can probably actually improve this particular incident. Having a "rocket" that doesn't explode but drops an AI controlled drone that kills (or even just disables) exactly who is targeted seems like it would be far superior from both the military perspective and the moral perspective. This sort of thing: https://youtu.be/DTqa-NEwUbs?t=94 https://youtu.be/DTqa-NEwUbs?t=94 It could even drop "phone home" over radio, allow the operators to point out the targets at that point, and then fire.
- wavefunction 11y ago
  We've been hearing about "smart weapons" since the early 90s and they don't seem to be getting any more intelligent as time has gone on.
sailfast 11y ago
Not sure that it matters for the sake of argument, but the weapon system used in question was a human-piloted, human-manned AC-130 gunship, not a drone / remote platform
- bootload 11y ago

narsil 11y ago

> If you increase the accuracy, you have to increase the mass. Which makes it bigger target. Boeing is developing compact portable laser weapons technology that could conceivably be mounted on drones. http://www.livescience.com/52121-laser-weapon-destroys-test-drone.html http://www.livescience.com/52121-laser-weapon-destroys-test-...

eru 11y ago
The laser itself might be compact enough. But---where do you get the energy from?
vlehto 11y ago
I'd like to point out, that 2 kilowatts is the power AK47 can give as output of kinetic energy when fired at full auto. If you look past the hype, lasers are far from ready.

sawwit 11y ago

In Prof. Tegmark’s presentation at the UN he mentioned the possibility of extremely cheap drones that approach the victim's face very quickly and pierce a bolt into the victim's brain through one of their eyes. That wouldn't require a high precision projectile so it will be easy and cheap to build.

kobayashi 11y ago

You'd probably really like the book The Future of Violence by Benjamin Wittes and Gabriella Blum