3 ms·
I would guess: we ban civilian drones from carrying explosives, nerve-toxins and other weapons; we invest the bulk of research effort in developing anti-drone d
by erasemus 9y ago
I would guess: we ban civilian drones from carrying explosives, nerve-toxins and other weapons; we invest the bulk of research effort in developing anti-drone drones. The anti-drone drones don't carry weapons that can be used against humans. Advanced drone tech would be less like nuclear weapons, against which there is no defence, and more like vaccines or antidotes.
Which is morally very different. Actually morality is an interesting aspect of the video/story. We had the bad guy white male presenter on the stage playing the good guy and claiming that his weapons could distinguish good guys from bad guys (and then of course the targeting of said weapons with a pitifully inadequate and unrealistic set of criteria).
- partycoder 9y agoYou can make any laws. But how exactly do you enforce them? Civilians manufacture and own drones, 3d printers are consumer products now, there are incredibly affordable electronic kits (e.g: Raspberry Pi)... then, for computer vision and AI you've got a lot of free toolkits to pick from... it will be challenging to effectively prevent it even if legislation forbids it.
- erasemus 9y agoThe bulk of the effort goes into R&D for anti-drone tech (this includes monitoring what the bad guys are up to).