3 ms·

Because I think people take pause when considering sending their own countrymen to their deaths. They won't think as long or as hard if killing the enemy is si

Because I think people take pause when considering sending their own countrymen to their deaths. They won't think as long or as hard if killing the enemy is simply a question of deploying robots. Think drone strikes. Also, recent developments in machine learning have seen computer programs outperform humans on certain tasks. Granted, those tasks currently are very specific, but if we extrapolate 30 or 40 years into the future, we may have killing robots which can't possibly be defended against by people without comparable technology. I think it's also simply a matter of imagining the particulars of a world with sophisticated killing robots. Imagine some kind of hunter drone tracking you, finding you, and dispassionately killing you. Do you want to live in that kind of world? Would you want to suffer that kind of fate?

EGreg 8y ago
How would comparable technology protect against swarms of drones designed to track down specific people or even worse just a large swath of people?
latch 8y ago
> Because people take pause I generally agree, especially if the bar is "taking pause", but playing the devil's advocate, is this _really_ true. They pay lip service to it. They weigh the politics of it. But I feel that between the Vietnam war and the 2nd Iraq war we can at least question the degree of their concern. Project 100,000 is a specific example I'd point to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_100,000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_100,000
- davesque 8y ago
  I'm sure there are counterexamples to my statement but I personally believe that it is true that most people would struggle with knowingly sending soldiers to their death. It's just my opinion.
  - lostgame 8y ago
    There are those who believe that a death in protection of their country is honourable, and those who believe whatever number of people are sacrificed in the name of their flag to be worth it. I can't imagine it, but they do exist.
dnprock 8y ago
> Imagine some kind of hunter drone tracking you, finding you, and dispassionately killing you. In this case, you need to surrender and become slave to survive. It'd be dumb to fight that killing robot. But it's your fault to lose your own freedom. You should have developed the killing robots before your adversary.
- code_duck 8y ago
  Where in that story did the robot ask for surrender?

EGreg 8y ago

How would comparable technology protect against swarms of drones designed to track down specific people or even worse just a large swath of people?

latch 8y ago

> Because people take pause I generally agree, especially if the bar is "taking pause", but playing the devil's advocate, is this _really_ true. They pay lip service to it. They weigh the politics of it. But I feel that between the Vietnam war and the 2nd Iraq war we can at least question the degree of their concern. Project 100,000 is a specific example I'd point to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_100,000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_100,000

davesque 8y ago
I'm sure there are counterexamples to my statement but I personally believe that it is true that most people would struggle with knowingly sending soldiers to their death. It's just my opinion.
- lostgame 8y ago
  There are those who believe that a death in protection of their country is honourable, and those who believe whatever number of people are sacrificed in the name of their flag to be worth it. I can't imagine it, but they do exist.

dnprock 8y ago

> Imagine some kind of hunter drone tracking you, finding you, and dispassionately killing you. In this case, you need to surrender and become slave to survive. It'd be dumb to fight that killing robot. But it's your fault to lose your own freedom. You should have developed the killing robots before your adversary.

code_duck 8y ago
Where in that story did the robot ask for surrender?