4 ms·

Is there any argument against autonomous guns, other than that they might go wild and cause a lot of unexpected deaths? We shouldn't mind them sometimes making

by Nutmog 11y ago

Is there any argument against autonomous guns, other than that they might go wild and cause a lot of unexpected deaths? We shouldn't mind them sometimes making mistakes and killing innocent people because human soldiers already do that often enough. Perhaps the robots will be slightly more accurate than humans, and that's surely good for everybody except their enemies. Maybe the real question we should be asking is why humans are allowed to kill people? When two countries fight each other, soldiers on both sides somehow decide it's OK to kill the other. They can't both be right, so in any war, thousands of flesh and bones killing machines (all soldiers on the "wrong" side) effectively go wild and try to kill lots of inappropriate people. That shows that human decision making is extremely poor, and can even unanimously agree on the same lethal wrong decision.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
RobertoG 11y ago
"Is there any argument against autonomous guns, other than that they might go wild and cause a lot of unexpected deaths?" Yes, that a robot always obey orders. In my opinion that is the most dangerous thing about this issue. Anyway, it's only a philosophic question because this is going to happen. "We" can talk about it, but "we" are not deciding anything. "They can't both be right" Not, but they can both be wrong, that is what normally happens.
- mtreis86 11y ago
  Humans are not much better than robots at disobeying orders, as demonstrated in the Milgram experiments.
  - shpx 11y ago
    Milgram conducted 23 different kinds of experiments, each with a different scenario, script and actors. This patchwork of experimental conditions, each conducted with a sample of only 20 or 40 participants, yielded rates of obedience that varied from 0% to 92.5%, with an average of 43%. Contrary to received opinion, a majority of Milgram’s participants disobeyed. [0] What's the obedience rate of a robot? [0] http://theconversation.com/revisiting-milgrams-shocking-obedience-experiments-24787 http://theconversation.com/revisiting-milgrams-shocking-obed...
studentrob 11y ago
They don't need to go wild to cause more civilian deaths than soldiers would. There is much less risk sending a robot to kill than there is sending a human. Humans fear death. Robots do not. Contractors claim that drones are accurate. However that can never guarantee that the human controllers are accurate. Humans controlling robots may err to the side of killing too many than too few, to a greater degree than soldiers would. So yeah I think there are some reasonable arguments against them. Jet fighters and bombers are somewhat limited by personnel and higher equipment costs. Drones do not require as much training to operate and will not have as much of a personnel constraint in the future. They could be as dangerous or worse than nuclear weapons for a country that is being attacked by them in the future. Rather than wiping out a population, drones could create slaves.

by Nutmog 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

RobertoG 11y ago

"Is there any argument against autonomous guns, other than that they might go wild and cause a lot of unexpected deaths?" Yes, that a robot always obey orders. In my opinion that is the most dangerous thing about this issue. Anyway, it's only a philosophic question because this is going to happen. "We" can talk about it, but "we" are not deciding anything. "They can't both be right" Not, but they can both be wrong, that is what normally happens.

mtreis86 11y ago
Humans are not much better than robots at disobeying orders, as demonstrated in the Milgram experiments.
- shpx 11y ago
  Milgram conducted 23 different kinds of experiments, each with a different scenario, script and actors. This patchwork of experimental conditions, each conducted with a sample of only 20 or 40 participants, yielded rates of obedience that varied from 0% to 92.5%, with an average of 43%. Contrary to received opinion, a majority of Milgram’s participants disobeyed. [0] What's the obedience rate of a robot? [0] http://theconversation.com/revisiting-milgrams-shocking-obedience-experiments-24787 http://theconversation.com/revisiting-milgrams-shocking-obed...

studentrob 11y ago

They don't need to go wild to cause more civilian deaths than soldiers would. There is much less risk sending a robot to kill than there is sending a human. Humans fear death. Robots do not. Contractors claim that drones are accurate. However that can never guarantee that the human controllers are accurate. Humans controlling robots may err to the side of killing too many than too few, to a greater degree than soldiers would. So yeah I think there are some reasonable arguments against them. Jet fighters and bombers are somewhat limited by personnel and higher equipment costs. Drones do not require as much training to operate and will not have as much of a personnel constraint in the future. They could be as dangerous or worse than nuclear weapons for a country that is being attacked by them in the future. Rather than wiping out a population, drones could create slaves.