4 ms·

Q&A on the ethics of warfare in the autonomous future

21 points by stablemap 9y ago

gt_ 9y ago
>RL: Generally, some of the things that had to do with biology were a little frightening, things like synthetic biology where you don't really know the ultimate implications. And some of the work with electromagnetics was a little scary, particularly as it had to do with humans and lethality. TH: Got it. So you spent some time in the private sector, and … Got it? Really? Am I alone in having nothing but questions in my mind after such a briefing? Sure, the interview must go on, but the lack of precision in this “got it” is disturbing to me. I have noticed this phrase being use in some loose ways lately. Am I being too sensitive?
- ams6110 9y ago
  Seems pretty clear to me that he was not in a position to offer any specifics. Probably due to NDA or national security yada yada yada.
  - gt_ 9y ago
    My comment concerns the interviewer's "Got it" response, not the interviewee's lack of information. I immediately considered what you're saying, but I wonder if it justifies the affirmative response. Your assumption is merely contextually reasonable. It is not implied and not 'clear'. I think it's becoming accepted to say "got it" when a conveyance is understood even when the conveyance remains between the lines. The result is a confirmation of one of two meanings, and no telling which one it is. It's a lot worse when the only value is to be snarky. I've seen both result in dysfunction, though. I think I prefer sincerity.
    - semi-extrinsic 9y ago
      Well, it says in the article "here is a lightly edited transcript of our discussion". The actual raw transcript was probably more like: TH: Interesting, can you tell me some more about what worries you most here? RL: I'm afraid I can't share any more details. Let's move on. TH: So you spent some time in the private sector, and … where the first part was edited into Got it.
  - AlexCoventry 9y ago
    Seems likely that he was referring to this, further on in the interview: > ...battlefield weapons that incorporate microwaves and things like directed energy beams.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
goatsi 9y ago
It will be interesting to see how human soldiers will react to the introduction of autonomous allies. They already have trust issues with unmanned systems [0], I imagine the reaction against to autonomous systems will be even stronger. [0] https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2017-12-20/why-troops-dont-trust-drones https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2017-1...
- gaius 9y ago
  But surely drones aren’t unmanned? Just their pilot is elsewhere. Curious as to what the real root of this is.
  - jackvalentine 9y ago
    I suppose unmanned in that context means 'not sharing the risk of the battlefield by being there' or something.
  - goatsi 9y ago
    The focus seems to be on the fact that the pilot is elsewhere. From the article: >Instead, the trust issue was a human issue. Not once did any of our respondents refer to a drone pilot as a human. Instead, drones were discussed in abstract terms that explicitly avoided any reference to a human controlling the machine. UAVs were “robots” or “machines” whose “operators,” as one respondent put it, were playing a video game “a world away.” This is despite the fact that most of them knew there was a human controlling the drone, and some even knew these pilots personally. Yet across the JTAC community, we heard a familiar narrative: drone pilots were coffee-drinking gamers whose distance from the battlefield severed their emotional connection to friendly ground troops. For instance, one of the JTACs explained that he preferred manned aircraft because their pilots “are in the fight, not just sipping a latte playing a video game.”
- Eridrus 9y ago
  That's an interesting link, but I think it's sort of the wrong question to ask. The last question of 10 unmanned vs 1 manned is closer to the the real question, but I think these operators are not used to making tough resource decisions because our military is so over funded.

21 points by stablemap 9y ago

gt_ 9y ago

>RL: Generally, some of the things that had to do with biology were a little frightening, things like synthetic biology where you don't really know the ultimate implications. And some of the work with electromagnetics was a little scary, particularly as it had to do with humans and lethality. TH: Got it. So you spent some time in the private sector, and … Got it? Really? Am I alone in having nothing but questions in my mind after such a briefing? Sure, the interview must go on, but the lack of precision in this “got it” is disturbing to me. I have noticed this phrase being use in some loose ways lately. Am I being too sensitive?

ams6110 9y ago
Seems pretty clear to me that he was not in a position to offer any specifics. Probably due to NDA or national security yada yada yada.
- gt_ 9y ago
  My comment concerns the interviewer's "Got it" response, not the interviewee's lack of information. I immediately considered what you're saying, but I wonder if it justifies the affirmative response. Your assumption is merely contextually reasonable. It is not implied and not 'clear'. I think it's becoming accepted to say "got it" when a conveyance is understood even when the conveyance remains between the lines. The result is a confirmation of one of two meanings, and no telling which one it is. It's a lot worse when the only value is to be snarky. I've seen both result in dysfunction, though. I think I prefer sincerity.
  - semi-extrinsic 9y ago
    Well, it says in the article "here is a lightly edited transcript of our discussion". The actual raw transcript was probably more like: TH: Interesting, can you tell me some more about what worries you most here? RL: I'm afraid I can't share any more details. Let's move on. TH: So you spent some time in the private sector, and … where the first part was edited into Got it.
- AlexCoventry 9y ago
  Seems likely that he was referring to this, further on in the interview: > ...battlefield weapons that incorporate microwaves and things like directed energy beams.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

goatsi 9y ago

It will be interesting to see how human soldiers will react to the introduction of autonomous allies. They already have trust issues with unmanned systems [0], I imagine the reaction against to autonomous systems will be even stronger. [0] https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2017-12-20/why-troops-dont-trust-drones https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2017-1...

gaius 9y ago
But surely drones aren’t unmanned? Just their pilot is elsewhere. Curious as to what the real root of this is.
- jackvalentine 9y ago
  I suppose unmanned in that context means 'not sharing the risk of the battlefield by being there' or something.
- goatsi 9y ago
  The focus seems to be on the fact that the pilot is elsewhere. From the article: >Instead, the trust issue was a human issue. Not once did any of our respondents refer to a drone pilot as a human. Instead, drones were discussed in abstract terms that explicitly avoided any reference to a human controlling the machine. UAVs were “robots” or “machines” whose “operators,” as one respondent put it, were playing a video game “a world away.” This is despite the fact that most of them knew there was a human controlling the drone, and some even knew these pilots personally. Yet across the JTAC community, we heard a familiar narrative: drone pilots were coffee-drinking gamers whose distance from the battlefield severed their emotional connection to friendly ground troops. For instance, one of the JTACs explained that he preferred manned aircraft because their pilots “are in the fight, not just sipping a latte playing a video game.”
Eridrus 9y ago
That's an interesting link, but I think it's sort of the wrong question to ask. The last question of 10 unmanned vs 1 manned is closer to the the real question, but I think these operators are not used to making tough resource decisions because our military is so over funded.