> True, but this doesn't require AI drones. You're right. They require bombs and bullets. Both have a far higher chance of collateral damage than using drone

> True, but this doesn't require AI drones. You're right. They require bombs and bullets. Both have a far higher chance of collateral damage than using drones. But apparently everyone has deemed them more acceptable than possible alternatives, so we use them. > Name one terrorist attack anywhere in the world in the last 20 years, therefore including 9/11, that could have been stopped by a swarm of AI drones. You've given me a false choice. Namely that only defending against terrorist attacks is the only legitimate purpose. Many others probably exist too. Last time I checked urban warfare was a fairly dicey situation for military personnel. Anything that can navigate, map, and neutralize enemy hostiles in a building, means less death rates for our soldiers.