6 ms·

There's a big difference between a jerry-rigged bomb strapped to a quadcopter and a purpose-built killbot produced by a nation state. Strong international sanct

There's a big difference between a jerry-rigged bomb strapped to a quadcopter and a purpose-built killbot produced by a nation state. Strong international sanctions against warbots are a good idea, even if it won't prevent every terrorist from making their own low-rent version.

swarnie_ 8y ago
> There's a big difference between a jerry-rigged bomb strapped to a quadcopter and a purpose-built killbot produced by a nation state Aren't we already there thought? Don't the US already have semi-autonomous flying kill-driods? The ones that occasional crash Pakistani weddings unannounced.
- epochwolf 8y ago
  If you count ICBMs, we’ve had them at least since the 1960s. For more targeted strikes with conventional explosives, we started using Tomahawk Cruise Missiles in 1991 during the Gulf War.
  - Recurecur 8y ago
    Those aren't autonomous weapons in the sense meant here. Both of what you mention attack a predetermined target - a target selected by humans. This technology is about "smart weapons" going out and searching for targets. For instance, the Chinese helicopter drone I mentioned in another post could easily be fitted with an IR sensor, and could probably hit targets out to ~200 meters with the AK. One challenge is IFF (Identification Friend or Foe), but if you just want the drone(s) to kill all "enemies" within a certain boundary that'd be easy. AK ammo is even cheap, unlike the $500K missiles we often use to blow up individual jihadis... And of course, at any time a human could potentially take control or at least monitor activity.
- adrianN 8y ago
  Those are lethal but non-autonomous weapons afaik. A human pulls the trigger.
dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
> Strong international sanctions against warbots are a good idea, even if it won't prevent every terrorist from making their own low-rent version. Assuming that all nations follow. Otherwise one rogue player can have a huge advantage, and that's the general problem with trying to ban military technologies.
- adrianN 8y ago
  The same is true for chemical or biological weapons. Banning them has worked reasonably well during WW2.
  - scotty79 8y ago
    However scary they are they are not particularly effective agains enemy combatants. That's the main reason the ban sort of works.
  - tomatotomato37 8y ago
    That's mostly because nukes are a better value once their manufacturing infrastructure is up. They're essentially a bioweapon with a really big boom included (purchase now and get an EMP pulse for free!)
Recurecur 8y ago
"There's a big difference between a jerry-rigged bomb strapped to a quadcopter and a purpose-built killbot produced by a nation state. Strong international sanctions against warbots are a good idea, even if it won't prevent every terrorist from making their own low-rent version." Killbots built by nation-states (essentially) are already available for purchase. How does an autonomous helicopter drone armed with an AK-47 sound? ;-) >The Blowfish A2 “autonomously performs complex combat missions, including fixed-point timing detection and fixed-range reconnaissance, and targeted precision strikes.” >Depending on customer preferences, Chinese military drone manufacturer Ziyan offers to equip Blowfish A2 with either missiles or machine guns. >Mr Allen wrote: “Though many current generation drones are primarily remotely operated, Chinese officials generally expect drones and military robotics to feature ever more extensive AI and autonomous capabilities in the future. >“Chinese weapons manufacturers already are selling armed drones with significant amounts of combat autonomy.” >China is also interested in using AI for military command decision-making. https://www.technocracy.news/china-releases-fully-autonomous-killer-robots-and-drones-for-combat/ https://www.technocracy.news/china-releases-fully-autonomous... China and Russia will ignore any treaties on this, just as Russia has already ignored many including the INF Treaty. As in many other cases, the West will essentially tie its own hands while allowing others to literally get away with murder.
- Recurecur 8y ago
  So I see this was downvoted without any effort to rebut the story... Anyone care to explain? It should also be mentioned that the drone I linked to above was being shown at an arms show, and is essentially being offered for sale to all comers. I'm sure there'll be healthy sales to some of the more autocratic/aggressive nations out there...
  - iliketosleep 8y ago
    I totally agree with your point and have raised this issue before (but not here). Most people prefer to bury their heads in the sand rather than confront these uncomfortable and complicated dilemmas. I believe the scientists in question would not be calling for this kind of ban if their sons and daughters were sent into battle against nations equipped with such weapons - in fact, they would be cooperating to develop this very technology if it meant protecting their loved ones. It's easy to be an idealist, until you've truly got something to lose. I think a lot of people need to be reminded of this.
chrisseaton 8y ago
> produced by a nation state Why do people always say ‘nation state’ in these situations? It’s not a fancy word for ‘major country’ - it means something specific. For example the UK is definitely not a nation state. The US is arguably not a nation state either, due to its cultural and lingual heterogeneity and tribal sovereignty.
- ljcn 8y ago
  It sounds fancier than "state"? Which is what was meant I think.
- kkarakk 8y ago
  "nation state" Dictionary result for nation state noun a sovereign state of which most of the citizens or subjects are united also by factors which define a nation, such as language or common descent. so you can call anything a nation state as long as that thing issues a passport i guess?
  - chrisseaton 8y ago
    > so you can call anything a nation state as long as that thing issues a passport i guess? What? No - you just gave the argument against that! > are united also by factors which define a nation, such as language or common descent This means the UK isn't a nation state - we have four nations in the UK, with different cultures, descents, and in some areas even languages. It also means that the US is not a nation state - the people there have very distinct descents. Today Americans literally still say they're 'Italian' rather than 'American'. Many Americans don't speak English. The US literally describes tribal lands as 'dependent nations', so it isn't one nation even by their own federal definition. Examples of nation states are places like Iceland and Portugal. These are the major military players that the original comment was trying to refer to.
    - dannypgh 8y ago
      It's possible for a person to be a member of multiple nations. In the eyes of many Americans (USian), American most certainly is a nation. MAGA-style nationalism is quite popular and powerful at the moment...
codyb 8y ago
Certainly, but when it's ten or twenty jerry rigged drone bombs I'm not so sure it make a ton of difference. Swarm warfare is going to be cheap and interesting. That's why the US can spend a quarter million on IUD proof humvees, and the insurgence can just put pointed caps on them to pierce the armor. It's a lot cheaper to fuck shit up than it is to defend against it.
Mirioron 8y ago
>Strong international sanctions against warbots are a good idea, even if it won't prevent every terrorist from making their own low-rent version. Why? I read the article, but I'm not buying the "would increase conflict" angle. Some countries are in constant conflict anyway. It's not like the reason they're not fighting more is because they have a lack of men. A lack of equipment is much more likely to be the limiting factor.

swarnie_ 8y ago

> There's a big difference between a jerry-rigged bomb strapped to a quadcopter and a purpose-built killbot produced by a nation state Aren't we already there thought? Don't the US already have semi-autonomous flying kill-driods? The ones that occasional crash Pakistani weddings unannounced.

epochwolf 8y ago
If you count ICBMs, we’ve had them at least since the 1960s. For more targeted strikes with conventional explosives, we started using Tomahawk Cruise Missiles in 1991 during the Gulf War.
- Recurecur 8y ago
  Those aren't autonomous weapons in the sense meant here. Both of what you mention attack a predetermined target - a target selected by humans. This technology is about "smart weapons" going out and searching for targets. For instance, the Chinese helicopter drone I mentioned in another post could easily be fitted with an IR sensor, and could probably hit targets out to ~200 meters with the AK. One challenge is IFF (Identification Friend or Foe), but if you just want the drone(s) to kill all "enemies" within a certain boundary that'd be easy. AK ammo is even cheap, unlike the $500K missiles we often use to blow up individual jihadis... And of course, at any time a human could potentially take control or at least monitor activity.
adrianN 8y ago
Those are lethal but non-autonomous weapons afaik. A human pulls the trigger.

dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago

> Strong international sanctions against warbots are a good idea, even if it won't prevent every terrorist from making their own low-rent version. Assuming that all nations follow. Otherwise one rogue player can have a huge advantage, and that's the general problem with trying to ban military technologies.

adrianN 8y ago
The same is true for chemical or biological weapons. Banning them has worked reasonably well during WW2.
- scotty79 8y ago
  However scary they are they are not particularly effective agains enemy combatants. That's the main reason the ban sort of works.
- tomatotomato37 8y ago
  That's mostly because nukes are a better value once their manufacturing infrastructure is up. They're essentially a bioweapon with a really big boom included (purchase now and get an EMP pulse for free!)

Recurecur 8y ago

"There's a big difference between a jerry-rigged bomb strapped to a quadcopter and a purpose-built killbot produced by a nation state. Strong international sanctions against warbots are a good idea, even if it won't prevent every terrorist from making their own low-rent version." Killbots built by nation-states (essentially) are already available for purchase. How does an autonomous helicopter drone armed with an AK-47 sound? ;-) >The Blowfish A2 “autonomously performs complex combat missions, including fixed-point timing detection and fixed-range reconnaissance, and targeted precision strikes.” >Depending on customer preferences, Chinese military drone manufacturer Ziyan offers to equip Blowfish A2 with either missiles or machine guns. >Mr Allen wrote: “Though many current generation drones are primarily remotely operated, Chinese officials generally expect drones and military robotics to feature ever more extensive AI and autonomous capabilities in the future. >“Chinese weapons manufacturers already are selling armed drones with significant amounts of combat autonomy.” >China is also interested in using AI for military command decision-making. https://www.technocracy.news/china-releases-fully-autonomous-killer-robots-and-drones-for-combat/ https://www.technocracy.news/china-releases-fully-autonomous... China and Russia will ignore any treaties on this, just as Russia has already ignored many including the INF Treaty. As in many other cases, the West will essentially tie its own hands while allowing others to literally get away with murder.

Recurecur 8y ago
So I see this was downvoted without any effort to rebut the story... Anyone care to explain? It should also be mentioned that the drone I linked to above was being shown at an arms show, and is essentially being offered for sale to all comers. I'm sure there'll be healthy sales to some of the more autocratic/aggressive nations out there...
- iliketosleep 8y ago
  I totally agree with your point and have raised this issue before (but not here). Most people prefer to bury their heads in the sand rather than confront these uncomfortable and complicated dilemmas. I believe the scientists in question would not be calling for this kind of ban if their sons and daughters were sent into battle against nations equipped with such weapons - in fact, they would be cooperating to develop this very technology if it meant protecting their loved ones. It's easy to be an idealist, until you've truly got something to lose. I think a lot of people need to be reminded of this.

chrisseaton 8y ago

> produced by a nation state Why do people always say ‘nation state’ in these situations? It’s not a fancy word for ‘major country’ - it means something specific. For example the UK is definitely not a nation state. The US is arguably not a nation state either, due to its cultural and lingual heterogeneity and tribal sovereignty.

ljcn 8y ago
It sounds fancier than "state"? Which is what was meant I think.
kkarakk 8y ago
"nation state" Dictionary result for nation state noun a sovereign state of which most of the citizens or subjects are united also by factors which define a nation, such as language or common descent. so you can call anything a nation state as long as that thing issues a passport i guess?
- chrisseaton 8y ago
  > so you can call anything a nation state as long as that thing issues a passport i guess? What? No - you just gave the argument against that! > are united also by factors which define a nation, such as language or common descent This means the UK isn't a nation state - we have four nations in the UK, with different cultures, descents, and in some areas even languages. It also means that the US is not a nation state - the people there have very distinct descents. Today Americans literally still say they're 'Italian' rather than 'American'. Many Americans don't speak English. The US literally describes tribal lands as 'dependent nations', so it isn't one nation even by their own federal definition. Examples of nation states are places like Iceland and Portugal. These are the major military players that the original comment was trying to refer to.
  - dannypgh 8y ago
    It's possible for a person to be a member of multiple nations. In the eyes of many Americans (USian), American most certainly is a nation. MAGA-style nationalism is quite popular and powerful at the moment...

codyb 8y ago

Certainly, but when it's ten or twenty jerry rigged drone bombs I'm not so sure it make a ton of difference. Swarm warfare is going to be cheap and interesting. That's why the US can spend a quarter million on IUD proof humvees, and the insurgence can just put pointed caps on them to pierce the armor. It's a lot cheaper to fuck shit up than it is to defend against it.

Mirioron 8y ago

>Strong international sanctions against warbots are a good idea, even if it won't prevent every terrorist from making their own low-rent version. Why? I read the article, but I'm not buying the "would increase conflict" angle. Some countries are in constant conflict anyway. It's not like the reason they're not fighting more is because they have a lack of men. A lack of equipment is much more likely to be the limiting factor.