6 ms·

There is a huge difference between creating a network protocol and designing autonomous killer drones.

by betolink 9y ago

mrlala 9y ago
Really? The killer drones couldn't communicate without said network protocols.
- ByThyGrace 9y ago
  The point being that "killer drones" are by sole purpose immoral. You can hardly find a humanitarian use for them, while network protocols are pretty much amoral. You can use them for bad, but also for good. Please excuse my manichaeism.
  - TangoTrotFox 9y ago
    One could say the same of atomic weapons, yet it's likely that nuclear weapons have saved more lives that we can even imagine. The impact of war was accelerating in raw numbers, and increasing in relative numbers, all the way up to WW2. 3-4% of the world's population was killed in WW2. In today's terms that would be ~270 million people. Think about that number for a minute. Let's put it in scales of 9/11s. During 9/11 2,996 people were killed. Our scaled WW2 had 90,120 times more deaths. That number is so absurdly large it's difficult to grasp. So put another way that's a 9/11 scale event every single day for 246 years. The United States, as a nation, was founded 242 years to give that number some scale. Just think about that! If each generation has children at 30 years old then another way of seeing that number would be a 9/11 event each and every day from today until 2 years after your great great great great great great great grandchild is born. But then came the nuke. Nuclear weapons make traditional war between developed and nuclear capable nations basically impossible. Think about what the Cold War really was, or even what the geopolitical 'disagreements' of today are. Those are World Wars 3 and 4, averted because these wars would be unwinnable by any side. Like Einstein said, 'I'm not sure what World War 3 will be fought with, but the 4th will be fought with sticks and stones!' Did the people developing nukes understand that they would finally create a weapon that immensely powerful that it would deter open unrestrained war for decades to come? It's possible, but I think that their motivation was something more straight forward - gain military superiority in the present, probably also mixed with a bit of scientific curiosity about the challenge of creating a nuclear bomb. It's difficult to predict the future. The most awful and aweful weapon created in the history of mankind ended up creating the most unprecedented period of peace for mankind as well. This is also why I vehemently oppose nuclear disarmament. That's how you get WW3 if people actually disarm, though in reality it'd simply likely result in nations obfuscating their nuclear weapon programs and facilities. It's just a molten salt thorium reactor guys, come on - breeders are awesome!
    - skate22 9y ago
      Peace for the west != peace for mankind
      - TangoTrotFox 9y ago
        I don't think you understand the scale of these wars between developed nations. You could kill every single person in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, etc and it wouldn't even begin to compare to the relative death toll that WW2 inflicted. And to be clear it is not because these countries are not heavily populated. Iraq, for instance, would be about the 7th largest country in Europe, nearly 4 times the size of Sweden for instance. The loss of life when developed nations fight against each other is literally inconceivable in today's times which is why I went out of my way to try to give measurements that can help you grasp it. The entirety of the world's conflicts today is completely and absolutely negligible compared to WW2. And I'm focusing on WW2. The major point here is the WW3 that we have avoided. The reason for that avoidance is almost entirely because of nuclear weapons. Finally, it's not just peace for the west. There is unprecedented peace throughout the vast majority of the world. The entirety of Africa and the Mideast account for less than 20% of the world's population.
        kolpa 9y ago
        I don't think minority populations are impressed by how wonderfully other populations are dying less?
        skate22 9y ago
        I did not say the death toll would compare. Im not arguing for or against nukes. Im only saying that the world today has not achieved peace for mankind. The school my friend went to as a child no longer exists because it was bombed (Syria) Wars are still happening today, just not with nukes. Every nation with nukes knows that it would be suicide to launch one.
  - MichaelMoser123 9y ago
    Technology is often of dual use - one mans killer drone is another mans life saver. A similar device could be used to get injured people out of harms way, or to deliver aid/medicine/whatever.
    - JorgeGT 9y ago
      Accurately dropping a flotation device onto drowning swimmers for instance: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-drone-rescue/drone-rescues-swimmers-in-australia-in-world-first-idUSKBN1F70ZR https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-drone-rescue/dr...
  - kolpa 9y ago
    Would you deny "killer drones" to the armies and civilians fighting the Nazi Wermacht?
  - zaccus 9y ago
    I don't see droning ISIS terrorists as immoral, sorry.
MichaelMoser123 9y ago
reliable and confidential communication is something that decides the outcome of wars. Coordination of the forces is one of the most important factors in military operations.
bb88 9y ago
I think an even more apt example is that the US military was the prime funding for the first integrated circuits.
aurelianito 9y ago
Self driving vehicles were originally funded by DARPA with the idea to use them in combat. Now self driving vehicles are our best hope to significantly reduce road kills. And that will generate a deficit in organ donors. Ethics are complicated.
- MichaelMoser123 9y ago
  Well, self driving cars will/might make well over a third of the workforce redundant (the brother of my wife is a driver, that makes it personal for me), I think that this has the potential to create major tensions within society. My point is that innovations have the potential to be applied in different contexts. So what?
Kalium 9y ago
You're absolutely right! There's a huge difference. One is a general solution to the general problem of how to move data around in an organized fashion and the other is a specific solution to the specific problem of wanting murderbots. That said, the approach of some of the commentors here is that the only acceptable approach is to refuse to work on anything that could ever be "weaponized". It's possible that the distinction you've so clearly and correctly pointed to could stand to be more compatible with this stance. Autonomous murderbots are highly likely to depend on network protocols, among other things.
bassman9000 9y ago
why? it was created so we could have reliable communications in the event of a total nuclear war, that is, an enabler

There is a huge difference between creating a network protocol and designing autonomous killer drones.

mrlala 9y ago

Really? The killer drones couldn't communicate without said network protocols.

ByThyGrace 9y ago
The point being that "killer drones" are by sole purpose immoral. You can hardly find a humanitarian use for them, while network protocols are pretty much amoral. You can use them for bad, but also for good. Please excuse my manichaeism.
- TangoTrotFox 9y ago
  One could say the same of atomic weapons, yet it's likely that nuclear weapons have saved more lives that we can even imagine. The impact of war was accelerating in raw numbers, and increasing in relative numbers, all the way up to WW2. 3-4% of the world's population was killed in WW2. In today's terms that would be ~270 million people. Think about that number for a minute. Let's put it in scales of 9/11s. During 9/11 2,996 people were killed. Our scaled WW2 had 90,120 times more deaths. That number is so absurdly large it's difficult to grasp. So put another way that's a 9/11 scale event every single day for 246 years. The United States, as a nation, was founded 242 years to give that number some scale. Just think about that! If each generation has children at 30 years old then another way of seeing that number would be a 9/11 event each and every day from today until 2 years after your great great great great great great great grandchild is born. But then came the nuke. Nuclear weapons make traditional war between developed and nuclear capable nations basically impossible. Think about what the Cold War really was, or even what the geopolitical 'disagreements' of today are. Those are World Wars 3 and 4, averted because these wars would be unwinnable by any side. Like Einstein said, 'I'm not sure what World War 3 will be fought with, but the 4th will be fought with sticks and stones!' Did the people developing nukes understand that they would finally create a weapon that immensely powerful that it would deter open unrestrained war for decades to come? It's possible, but I think that their motivation was something more straight forward - gain military superiority in the present, probably also mixed with a bit of scientific curiosity about the challenge of creating a nuclear bomb. It's difficult to predict the future. The most awful and aweful weapon created in the history of mankind ended up creating the most unprecedented period of peace for mankind as well. This is also why I vehemently oppose nuclear disarmament. That's how you get WW3 if people actually disarm, though in reality it'd simply likely result in nations obfuscating their nuclear weapon programs and facilities. It's just a molten salt thorium reactor guys, come on - breeders are awesome!
  - skate22 9y ago
    Peace for the west != peace for mankind
    - TangoTrotFox 9y ago
      I don't think you understand the scale of these wars between developed nations. You could kill every single person in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, etc and it wouldn't even begin to compare to the relative death toll that WW2 inflicted. And to be clear it is not because these countries are not heavily populated. Iraq, for instance, would be about the 7th largest country in Europe, nearly 4 times the size of Sweden for instance. The loss of life when developed nations fight against each other is literally inconceivable in today's times which is why I went out of my way to try to give measurements that can help you grasp it. The entirety of the world's conflicts today is completely and absolutely negligible compared to WW2. And I'm focusing on WW2. The major point here is the WW3 that we have avoided. The reason for that avoidance is almost entirely because of nuclear weapons. Finally, it's not just peace for the west. There is unprecedented peace throughout the vast majority of the world. The entirety of Africa and the Mideast account for less than 20% of the world's population.
      - kolpa 9y ago
        I don't think minority populations are impressed by how wonderfully other populations are dying less?
      - skate22 9y ago
        I did not say the death toll would compare. Im not arguing for or against nukes. Im only saying that the world today has not achieved peace for mankind. The school my friend went to as a child no longer exists because it was bombed (Syria) Wars are still happening today, just not with nukes. Every nation with nukes knows that it would be suicide to launch one.
- MichaelMoser123 9y ago
  Technology is often of dual use - one mans killer drone is another mans life saver. A similar device could be used to get injured people out of harms way, or to deliver aid/medicine/whatever.
  - JorgeGT 9y ago
    Accurately dropping a flotation device onto drowning swimmers for instance: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-drone-rescue/drone-rescues-swimmers-in-australia-in-world-first-idUSKBN1F70ZR https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-drone-rescue/dr...
- kolpa 9y ago
  Would you deny "killer drones" to the armies and civilians fighting the Nazi Wermacht?
- zaccus 9y ago
  I don't see droning ISIS terrorists as immoral, sorry.

MichaelMoser123 9y ago

reliable and confidential communication is something that decides the outcome of wars. Coordination of the forces is one of the most important factors in military operations.

bb88 9y ago

I think an even more apt example is that the US military was the prime funding for the first integrated circuits.

aurelianito 9y ago

Self driving vehicles were originally funded by DARPA with the idea to use them in combat. Now self driving vehicles are our best hope to significantly reduce road kills. And that will generate a deficit in organ donors. Ethics are complicated.

MichaelMoser123 9y ago
Well, self driving cars will/might make well over a third of the workforce redundant (the brother of my wife is a driver, that makes it personal for me), I think that this has the potential to create major tensions within society. My point is that innovations have the potential to be applied in different contexts. So what?

Kalium 9y ago

You're absolutely right! There's a huge difference. One is a general solution to the general problem of how to move data around in an organized fashion and the other is a specific solution to the specific problem of wanting murderbots. That said, the approach of some of the commentors here is that the only acceptable approach is to refuse to work on anything that could ever be "weaponized". It's possible that the distinction you've so clearly and correctly pointed to could stand to be more compatible with this stance. Autonomous murderbots are highly likely to depend on network protocols, among other things.

bassman9000 9y ago

why? it was created so we could have reliable communications in the event of a total nuclear war, that is, an enabler