5 ms·

>>Someday killer robots will be a thing, but thankfully that day isn't today. Why do you say "thankfully"? Isn't it better to have robot armies face each other

>>Someday killer robots will be a thing, but thankfully that day isn't today. Why do you say "thankfully"? Isn't it better to have robot armies face each other than human armies? Wars will probably continue to happen no matter what.

lawpoop 10y ago
It would be great if war gets to some point where human lives aren't threatened, but for the forseeable future, robot soldiers are going to be killing humans. Forces who can afford them aren't going to be squaring off anytime soon-- it's going to be military Goliaths like Assad vs. rebels. Like other bombs and advanced weaponry.
- riffraff 10y ago
  yet, as someone mentioned to me many years ago, robots aren't (probably) going to torture and rape. E.g. in ww2-with-robots people would have been killed but the nanking massacre would not have happened.
  - lawpoop 10y ago
    You're saying a force with robot soldiers would have robot soldiers alone, with no human soldiers who would follow up, come in, and commit war crimes?
    - riffraff 10y ago
      no, I am saying that if we replace some human soldiers with some robots, it's likely that the amount of war crimes goes down. E.g. the number of raped women in Nanking was 20000 per some accounts. If half the army had been robots, there might have been 10000 less rapes. If you consider that battle frenzy is likely to de-humanize soldiers much more than "setup camp and hold ground" operations, it seems likely that the number of war crimes goes down even more, once you remove humans from active battle. Of course, I cannot exclude rampaging robots taking revenge on puny humans, but that seems unlikely.
      - lawpoop 10y ago
        War crimes, for the most part, aren't some battle-frenzy or blood-lust, they are either a deliberate tactic or lack of discipline. Nanking wasn't soldiers gone crazy from war, it was deliberate punishment and demoralization of the Chinese. Also see more recent conflicts in Africa. As far as lack of discipline, see the US Vietnam war. It just seems to me that we already have "robot" soldiers -- tanks, plans, bombs, artillery. When the purpose is to terrorize and demoralize an enemy's population, they're not going to have robots doing it.
- mercurial 10y ago
  Precisely, and for the governments with the robots, this will make the prospect of going to war even more attractive.
ChuckMcM 10y ago
One school of thought has that World War II was much bigger and deadlier because a single human could kill more opposing humans than ever before. On the one hand we sort of took that to infinity with atomics but barring that, in wars like the ones in Syria, it would much bloodier for the side that did not have killer robots. And what is worse, it might be more easily engaged in at a distance. One huge issue foreign policy people have with drone strikes is how "uneven" they are. War is a horrible thing and when it can be prosecuted with less risk, it seems more likely. And while robot armies fighting each other might seem like a "good" thing, the people dying most often in Syria and Iraq are not soldiers on either side, they are just trying to live out their days. Arming mechanical devices to kill people is never a good thing.
mamcx 10y ago
We already have that. Is called videogames. We can have a war between 2 or more parties using them. Why not do this (or just use only robots). For the same reason when you read "videogames for real wars" and instantly see how stupid is it.
s_q_b 10y ago
I'll approach this from a different angle: it is more terrifying, because robots don't say "no." Since Nuremberg, the individual decision to refuse to carry out orders contrary to national or international law has been a vital bulwark against atrocities of all types, including nuclear war. Stanislov Petrov saved the world by refusing to follow procedure, because he (correctly) believed the data to be in error. Tiananmen Square didn't repeat itself in Tahrir only because the commander of the theatre operations refused a direct order from President Mubarak to use tanks to retake the square. After the refusal, the order was relayed directly to the tanks within and among the square. Officers were calling their fathers, brothers, mentors, even one who called his former teacher, an American NDU Professor, all asking what they should do. Eventually, the armed forces defected, and Mubarak fell. Robotic soldiers (AGVs) have no such fail safe. They have no conscience, no larger sense of purpose, no allegiance to King and country. They can be configured to kill whatever they are told, without even a moment's hesitation. Having soldiers that can coldly eradicate populations serves as the perfect tool of the autocrat, and is the perfect foil of the volunteer warrior from a democracy. One risks nothing, benefitting himself, the other risks everything, benefitting others. That said, robots are merely tools: physical extensions made by humans, tied to mathematical algorithms written by humans, executed on silicon designed by humans. They can have whatever value system we choose to imbue. The ruse that we shouldn't accommodate is any attempt on the part of the operators to shift the blame for their actions onto the system. A drone doesn't kill 16 people at a wedding any more than an AKS-74 killed a dozen Ukrainian citizens in Crimea. People control these actions. It's like we spend all of our time obsessing about the puppets, and never question who's holding the strings. "Will robot soldiers be good or bad?" isn't the question. The question is, "Are the soldiers controlling the robot good or bad?"
King-Aaron 10y ago
> Isn't it better to have robot armies face each other than human armies? You should watch the documentary series "Terminator".

lawpoop 10y ago

It would be great if war gets to some point where human lives aren't threatened, but for the forseeable future, robot soldiers are going to be killing humans. Forces who can afford them aren't going to be squaring off anytime soon-- it's going to be military Goliaths like Assad vs. rebels. Like other bombs and advanced weaponry.

riffraff 10y ago
yet, as someone mentioned to me many years ago, robots aren't (probably) going to torture and rape. E.g. in ww2-with-robots people would have been killed but the nanking massacre would not have happened.
- lawpoop 10y ago
  You're saying a force with robot soldiers would have robot soldiers alone, with no human soldiers who would follow up, come in, and commit war crimes?
  - riffraff 10y ago
    no, I am saying that if we replace some human soldiers with some robots, it's likely that the amount of war crimes goes down. E.g. the number of raped women in Nanking was 20000 per some accounts. If half the army had been robots, there might have been 10000 less rapes. If you consider that battle frenzy is likely to de-humanize soldiers much more than "setup camp and hold ground" operations, it seems likely that the number of war crimes goes down even more, once you remove humans from active battle. Of course, I cannot exclude rampaging robots taking revenge on puny humans, but that seems unlikely.
    - lawpoop 10y ago
      War crimes, for the most part, aren't some battle-frenzy or blood-lust, they are either a deliberate tactic or lack of discipline. Nanking wasn't soldiers gone crazy from war, it was deliberate punishment and demoralization of the Chinese. Also see more recent conflicts in Africa. As far as lack of discipline, see the US Vietnam war. It just seems to me that we already have "robot" soldiers -- tanks, plans, bombs, artillery. When the purpose is to terrorize and demoralize an enemy's population, they're not going to have robots doing it.
mercurial 10y ago
Precisely, and for the governments with the robots, this will make the prospect of going to war even more attractive.

ChuckMcM 10y ago

One school of thought has that World War II was much bigger and deadlier because a single human could kill more opposing humans than ever before. On the one hand we sort of took that to infinity with atomics but barring that, in wars like the ones in Syria, it would much bloodier for the side that did not have killer robots. And what is worse, it might be more easily engaged in at a distance. One huge issue foreign policy people have with drone strikes is how "uneven" they are. War is a horrible thing and when it can be prosecuted with less risk, it seems more likely. And while robot armies fighting each other might seem like a "good" thing, the people dying most often in Syria and Iraq are not soldiers on either side, they are just trying to live out their days. Arming mechanical devices to kill people is never a good thing.

mamcx 10y ago

We already have that. Is called videogames. We can have a war between 2 or more parties using them. Why not do this (or just use only robots). For the same reason when you read "videogames for real wars" and instantly see how stupid is it.

s_q_b 10y ago

I'll approach this from a different angle: it is more terrifying, because robots don't say "no." Since Nuremberg, the individual decision to refuse to carry out orders contrary to national or international law has been a vital bulwark against atrocities of all types, including nuclear war. Stanislov Petrov saved the world by refusing to follow procedure, because he (correctly) believed the data to be in error. Tiananmen Square didn't repeat itself in Tahrir only because the commander of the theatre operations refused a direct order from President Mubarak to use tanks to retake the square. After the refusal, the order was relayed directly to the tanks within and among the square. Officers were calling their fathers, brothers, mentors, even one who called his former teacher, an American NDU Professor, all asking what they should do. Eventually, the armed forces defected, and Mubarak fell. Robotic soldiers (AGVs) have no such fail safe. They have no conscience, no larger sense of purpose, no allegiance to King and country. They can be configured to kill whatever they are told, without even a moment's hesitation. Having soldiers that can coldly eradicate populations serves as the perfect tool of the autocrat, and is the perfect foil of the volunteer warrior from a democracy. One risks nothing, benefitting himself, the other risks everything, benefitting others. That said, robots are merely tools: physical extensions made by humans, tied to mathematical algorithms written by humans, executed on silicon designed by humans. They can have whatever value system we choose to imbue. The ruse that we shouldn't accommodate is any attempt on the part of the operators to shift the blame for their actions onto the system. A drone doesn't kill 16 people at a wedding any more than an AKS-74 killed a dozen Ukrainian citizens in Crimea. People control these actions. It's like we spend all of our time obsessing about the puppets, and never question who's holding the strings. "Will robot soldiers be good or bad?" isn't the question. The question is, "Are the soldiers controlling the robot good or bad?"

King-Aaron 10y ago

> Isn't it better to have robot armies face each other than human armies? You should watch the documentary series "Terminator".