4 ms·

An enemy doesn't need its robots to kill you to defeat you. It just needs to disable your infrastructure and break all your weapons, including any killer robot

An enemy doesn't need its robots to kill you to defeat you. It just needs to disable your infrastructure and break all your weapons, including any killer robots you have. All the taxpayers can keep living. The new rules will be in the email.

lazyjones 9y ago
> All the taxpayers can keep living. The new rules will be in the email. Why would you need taxpayers when you can just take anything you want, including everything those taxpayers would consume? You would be redundant - a worse-controllable, unreliable, technically inferior and more costly minion. So yes, you would be killed, unless needed for organ harvesting or pleasure.
- tzakrajs 9y ago
  What if the rules of the killer robots are benevolent? Maybe we have a day in the shade.
  - lazyjones 9y ago
    > What if the rules of the killer robots are benevolent? Maybe The owner of those robots would likely lose in a war against someone with more efficient robots, so the outcome would be the same in the long run.
- stretchwithme 9y ago
  I guess you are assuming a time when robots do everything better than humans. I am just assuming a level of technology where robots can infiltrate and break things. I don't believe the former will happen for a very long time. And even if it does, those who control such advanced technologies will still be paying taxes. You may be able to disable these technologies, but that means you get 0% of what they produce instead of the tax that would ordinarily be paid. It makes more sense to keep those owners operating and innovating and just collect a percentage. If you don't need or want what people offer, what is the point of invading? The reality is that people want status. And status isn't something you feel because you have bots sending you text messages telling you how great you are. It's something you get from other people.

lazyjones 9y ago

> All the taxpayers can keep living. The new rules will be in the email. Why would you need taxpayers when you can just take anything you want, including everything those taxpayers would consume? You would be redundant - a worse-controllable, unreliable, technically inferior and more costly minion. So yes, you would be killed, unless needed for organ harvesting or pleasure.

tzakrajs 9y ago
What if the rules of the killer robots are benevolent? Maybe we have a day in the shade.
- lazyjones 9y ago
  > What if the rules of the killer robots are benevolent? Maybe The owner of those robots would likely lose in a war against someone with more efficient robots, so the outcome would be the same in the long run.
stretchwithme 9y ago
I guess you are assuming a time when robots do everything better than humans. I am just assuming a level of technology where robots can infiltrate and break things. I don't believe the former will happen for a very long time. And even if it does, those who control such advanced technologies will still be paying taxes. You may be able to disable these technologies, but that means you get 0% of what they produce instead of the tax that would ordinarily be paid. It makes more sense to keep those owners operating and innovating and just collect a percentage. If you don't need or want what people offer, what is the point of invading? The reality is that people want status. And status isn't something you feel because you have bots sending you text messages telling you how great you are. It's something you get from other people.