3 ms·

I think AI drones make us more willing to kill indiscriminately. When our people are also at risk, we pay more attention to whether there is sufficient informat

I think AI drones make us more willing to kill indiscriminately. When our people are also at risk, we pay more attention to whether there is sufficient information to safely operate with minimal casualties on either side. Drones invite "spray-and-pray" warfare that breeds further aggression. They definitely have value, drones would have been great at D-Day, but realistically considering human behavior... I suspect these "discriminate" weapons will result in a net increase of collateral damage.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
yourbandsucks 8y ago
Nobody's talking about AI drones, or anything close to that. The proposal was better image recognition algos for surveillance drones. https://dod.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1254719/project-maven-to-deploy-computer-algorithms-to-war-zone-by-years-end/utm_medium/facebook/?utm_source=dlvr.it https://dod.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1254719/project... Let's take a step down the slippery slope and assume that in the future it was repurposed for manually triggered weapons drones. Ever see a story about how the US drone-bombed a wedding or a goat farmer? Maybe better (or any) image recognition could have saved innocent lives. It's not that clear cut.
- losteric 8y ago
  You aren't thinking about AI drones, other people are. Project Maven was a first step towards securing broader DoD contracts. Pretending drones were not part of the picture is either naive or disingenuous.
  - yourbandsucks 8y ago
    You can't do any better than slippery slope? Who's being disengenuous? There are several rubicons between here and AI killing machines. Why draw this particular line? Why not just halt all AI research? If I said that banning bump stocks was "basically gun confiscation" or that implementing universal healthcare was "basically the great leap forward", would you be convinced? I'm really trying to understand your argument here, please help me out.
AnimalMuppet 8y ago
I'm not sure that I buy your first paragraph. When our people are also at risk, there is more incentive to shoot first rather than risk being shot. When our people are not at risk, we can take the time to be sure, because our downside is smaller.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

yourbandsucks 8y ago

Nobody's talking about AI drones, or anything close to that. The proposal was better image recognition algos for surveillance drones. https://dod.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1254719/project-maven-to-deploy-computer-algorithms-to-war-zone-by-years-end/utm_medium/facebook/?utm_source=dlvr.it https://dod.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1254719/project... Let's take a step down the slippery slope and assume that in the future it was repurposed for manually triggered weapons drones. Ever see a story about how the US drone-bombed a wedding or a goat farmer? Maybe better (or any) image recognition could have saved innocent lives. It's not that clear cut.

losteric 8y ago
You aren't thinking about AI drones, other people are. Project Maven was a first step towards securing broader DoD contracts. Pretending drones were not part of the picture is either naive or disingenuous.
- yourbandsucks 8y ago
  You can't do any better than slippery slope? Who's being disengenuous? There are several rubicons between here and AI killing machines. Why draw this particular line? Why not just halt all AI research? If I said that banning bump stocks was "basically gun confiscation" or that implementing universal healthcare was "basically the great leap forward", would you be convinced? I'm really trying to understand your argument here, please help me out.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago

I'm not sure that I buy your first paragraph. When our people are also at risk, there is more incentive to shoot first rather than risk being shot. When our people are not at risk, we can take the time to be sure, because our downside is smaller.