3 ms·

Didn't the long range Harpoon launches back during the first gulf war do that? Give it a coordinate to hit, some radar map data to find its way with, and send

Didn't the long range Harpoon launches back during the first gulf war do that? Give it a coordinate to hit, some radar map data to find its way with, and send it on its way.

tyingq 10y ago
"Give it a coordinate to hit" Part of the concern with the truly autonomous AI driven weapons is that they could patrol large areas and select their own targets, with whatever arbitrary rules you wanted.
- digi_owl 10y ago
  Given that we already have incidents of helicopter pilots gunning down news crews because they confused a camera with a RPG, i'm not sure if such a weapon will be better or worse than the status quo.
  - JulianMorrison 10y ago
    Better, almost certainly, in terms of effectiveness, avoiding friendly fire, killing only the target. The elephant in the room is that it may not be a good idea for the US government to be better at killing people in highly targeted ways, without any risk to themselves. It seems to encourage them to do it more. Suppose the USA had a full fledged Star Wars scale drone army of robot ground troops. Do you honestly think it wouldn't be in Syria right now?
    - digi_owl 10y ago
      That may indeed be the biggest risk. If the boots on the ground do not bleed red, the people in charge may be more apt at option for the violent solution. This because blown up drones do not look bad on the evening news.
- Retric 10y ago
  With Mines we say "kill anything that enters this area". With ICBM's, "kill anything over there." If anything AI just adds "kill anything... except this and that."
- clarry 10y ago
  Ultimately, the rules are set by people. I don't see how a machine executing arbitrary rules set by people is that different from people executing arbitrary orders given by people. Just a week ago, two Belgian fighters allegedly bombed a civilian target in Syria, killing four and and further injuring two innocent people. That's a very arbitrary action to take, yet somebody must've ordered the pilots to do that. Perhaps somebody expected there to be armed terrorists there? If they had sent an autonomous robot, with the rules and training to target actually armed targets (how would a robot tell they're terrorists though?), perhaps these civilians would still be fine.
  - tyingq 10y ago
    "Ultimately, the rules are set by people" Maybe. AI is tricky. Ask someone on the Google search team to show you, definitively, why each of the top 10 results for a query are where they are. They can't.
- inputcoffee 10y ago
  Yes, but we have "arbitrary" rules now. The difference is that the AI would actually follow them, truthfully report the result, and learn from its mistakes.
paulmd 10y ago
CIWS (eg Phalanx) have a similar "autonomous" mode. Once enabled, they will autonomously select target signatures (something that looks like an incoming missile) and engage. Both Harpoon and Phalanx have a relatively distinct target. There aren't tons of military-grade radars out there, and there shouldn't be tons of objects blasting right towards a ship at multiple times the speed of sound. Autonomous systems will target less distinct signatures but it's all a matter of degree. Mis-identification of targets has resulted in many civilian deaths in the past, even with humans, and sooner or later similar mistakes will occur with autonomous weapon systems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
- bglazer 10y ago
  There have already been several accidents involving CIWS systems in autonomous mode. See the Incidents section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS?wprov=sfla1
  - paulmd 10y ago
    One of the cardinal rules of firearms safety is "always be aware of what's behind your target". I see the Phalanx isn't very good at that...
digi_owl 10y ago
Gah, got the name wrong. I was thinking of Tomahawk...

Didn't the long range Harpoon launches back during the first gulf war do that? Give it a coordinate to hit, some radar map data to find its way with, and send it on its way.

tyingq 10y ago

"Give it a coordinate to hit" Part of the concern with the truly autonomous AI driven weapons is that they could patrol large areas and select their own targets, with whatever arbitrary rules you wanted.

digi_owl 10y ago
Given that we already have incidents of helicopter pilots gunning down news crews because they confused a camera with a RPG, i'm not sure if such a weapon will be better or worse than the status quo.
- JulianMorrison 10y ago
  Better, almost certainly, in terms of effectiveness, avoiding friendly fire, killing only the target. The elephant in the room is that it may not be a good idea for the US government to be better at killing people in highly targeted ways, without any risk to themselves. It seems to encourage them to do it more. Suppose the USA had a full fledged Star Wars scale drone army of robot ground troops. Do you honestly think it wouldn't be in Syria right now?
  - digi_owl 10y ago
    That may indeed be the biggest risk. If the boots on the ground do not bleed red, the people in charge may be more apt at option for the violent solution. This because blown up drones do not look bad on the evening news.
Retric 10y ago
With Mines we say "kill anything that enters this area". With ICBM's, "kill anything over there." If anything AI just adds "kill anything... except this and that."
clarry 10y ago
Ultimately, the rules are set by people. I don't see how a machine executing arbitrary rules set by people is that different from people executing arbitrary orders given by people. Just a week ago, two Belgian fighters allegedly bombed a civilian target in Syria, killing four and and further injuring two innocent people. That's a very arbitrary action to take, yet somebody must've ordered the pilots to do that. Perhaps somebody expected there to be armed terrorists there? If they had sent an autonomous robot, with the rules and training to target actually armed targets (how would a robot tell they're terrorists though?), perhaps these civilians would still be fine.
- tyingq 10y ago
  "Ultimately, the rules are set by people" Maybe. AI is tricky. Ask someone on the Google search team to show you, definitively, why each of the top 10 results for a query are where they are. They can't.
inputcoffee 10y ago
Yes, but we have "arbitrary" rules now. The difference is that the AI would actually follow them, truthfully report the result, and learn from its mistakes.

paulmd 10y ago

CIWS (eg Phalanx) have a similar "autonomous" mode. Once enabled, they will autonomously select target signatures (something that looks like an incoming missile) and engage. Both Harpoon and Phalanx have a relatively distinct target. There aren't tons of military-grade radars out there, and there shouldn't be tons of objects blasting right towards a ship at multiple times the speed of sound. Autonomous systems will target less distinct signatures but it's all a matter of degree. Mis-identification of targets has resulted in many civilian deaths in the past, even with humans, and sooner or later similar mistakes will occur with autonomous weapon systems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

bglazer 10y ago
There have already been several accidents involving CIWS systems in autonomous mode. See the Incidents section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS?wprov=sfla1
- paulmd 10y ago
  One of the cardinal rules of firearms safety is "always be aware of what's behind your target". I see the Phalanx isn't very good at that...

digi_owl 10y ago

Gah, got the name wrong. I was thinking of Tomahawk...