5 ms·

This reminded me of http://autonomousweapons.org/ http://autonomousweapons.org/

fit2rule 7y ago
Yes, this is all too real to me. What is really scary though, is just how much support the idea of autonomous weapons has in the military-industrial sector - it seems that everyone is working on similar programs. The most shocking angle of all, is how willing people are to build this technology - like, the cool factor overrides any moral or ethical issues, and even bringing up a question of ethics around these technologies will get you segregated from the 'cool hunter' classes...
- shrimp_emoji 7y ago
  I'm down for it. There's no stopping acceleration. And war, especially modern war, isn't a human task. Humans are bad at it, and it's bad for humans. Cool, precise machines though? No fear, no boredom, no hunger, no sleep. What's not to love? And it's chic and cyberpunk af. They better be smart and unhackable and free of bugs though.
  - supergauntlet 7y ago
    > And it's chic and cyberpunk af I actually can't think of something more cyberpunk dystopia we-are-the-bad-guys than mindless killing machines that uphold imperialism. > They better be smart and unhackable and free of bugs though. Damn it, this is a joke that I misread, right? Surely you're not serious?
    - fit2rule 7y ago
      >uphold imperialism Yeah, this is the rub. Better weapons systems mean easier tyranny. I couldn't imagine what life is going to be like when there are fleets of these things patrolling cities, but I guess we're going to find out soon enough. I imagine a scenario akin to Hong Kong - 2 million people, whose leaders are suddenly rendered unconscious mid-march by a fleet of drones.
      - derefr 7y ago
        Imagine if you will, though: getting to the point where these things can be mostly-3D-printed and pumped out in garages. In est: guerilla drone war.
- jcranberry 7y ago
  I don't see how they're more unethical than any other weapon made to kill.
  - nothrabannosir 7y ago
    They aren’t. Conventional weapons manufacturers don’t have a great cool factor. See Masters of War by Bob Dylan for a popular take on this.
  - cheeseomlit 7y ago
    When you order a soldier to commit a war crime he might refuse. A machine never refuses.
    - 7952 7y ago
      Of course some crimes are committed by soldiers who are actively disobeying orders. An autonomous weapon is not going to feel any of the emotions that lead soldiers to do terrible things.
    - squarefoot 7y ago
      This. Also a machine doesn't come back with PTSD, wounded or in a coffin, so there are no parents, relatives and friends finally realizing the true costs of war.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      The flip side of this argument is that an effective army needs people who to a large degree don't refuse orders.
    - rmtech 7y ago
      He might but humans have this amazing track record of slaughtering each other. Recently (1990s) with machetes in Rwanda. Very low tech. I don't trust humans to avoid war crimes. Robots could have protections built in in a way that international orgs can verify.
      - 7y ago
- analognoise 7y ago
  The moral and ethical issues aren't unidirectionally bad - you're building things that keep your side safe/secure and ensure a win. Those are your friends and neighbors on the battlefield - they aren't unthinking stormtroopers, they're the people you went to school with. Even guided missiles, which seem indiscriminate, are much more precise and limit collateral damage. 50 years ago the alternative was carpet bombing - a guided missile produces much more targeted damage. You can argue that guided missiles save lives - if you want someone dead enough that you're willing to kill everyone around them, having an option to just knock them out seems much more humane (especially to the kids on the nearby playground). Plus, I'd absolutely hate to be the side that didn't uparmor with autonomous systems - you'd get creamed. Like it or not, it's a part of the battlefield now. I'm not a fan of us bringing back tactical nuclear (low yield) munitions, but that's apparently also happening. AND the work can be totally badass, the stability/pay is good, and you just get more valuable as you age (unlike being, say, a front end web developer). Plus seeing something you built go out to the range and tear apart a tank/knock down an RPG/launch into space/whatever is really, really dang cool.
  - lawlessone 7y ago
    >they aren't unthinking stormtroopers, They aren't but the bots and drones are.
    - mullingitover 7y ago
      Those aren't unthinking bots, those are my caretakers in my old age.
  - vangelis 7y ago
    Maybe we can set up an automated slaughter factory for immigrants from the global south at the border. It'll be pretty dang cool.
    - 15155 7y ago
      https://www.wired.com/2007/06/for-years-and-y/ https://www.wired.com/2007/06/for-years-and-y/ If these existed, would people continue attempt to cross illegally? The thought-provoking argument is that these pieces of technology, if foolproof, would go completely unused as people inherently value their lives (but not laws.)
- matmann2001 7y ago
  >The most shocking angle of all, is how willing people are to build this technology - like, the cool factor overrides any moral or ethical issues People tell themselves all sorts of things to justify this kind of cognitive dissonance. The predominant arguments I've seen are: A) Technology isn't good/bad, it's how you use it. And fortunately for the engineers, the tech will be used far away by people they'll never meet and the details of which will remain classified. Out of sight, out of mind. B) If we don't build it, someone else will. And we don't want this tech to fall into our enemy's hands first, do we? Best defense is a good offense.
  - setr 7y ago
    >B) If we don't build it, someone else will. And we don't want this tech to fall into our enemy's hands first, do we? Best defense is a good offense. I'm not actually clear on what's incorrect about this logic -- unless there's some kind of agreement across all superpowers not to research this subject, or the subject itself is not actually beneficial to research.. why would you assume that none of your potential adversaries are researching it? And once you recognize that they might research it, and that if they did research it, and you didn't, they might switch from potential adversary to actual adversary (as they now believe themselves to have the upper hand), the only moral and ethical thing to do ... is to research it yourself! Perhaps the more moral and ethical thing is to give away the technology once you have it, so that you yourself won't have the chance to be aggressor ... but otherwise, I'm not sure how you can justify not researching it (war, and the potential for it, exists regardless of whether you want it to)
    - astazangasta 7y ago
      The main problem with this logic is it is much easier to steal technology than invent it, so by doing this you are not only assuring your enemies will end up with that scary tech, you are building it for them.
    - matmann2001 7y ago
      > I'm not actually clear on what's incorrect about this logic It's this same logic that gave us The Cold War.

Yes, this is all too real to me. What is really scary though, is just how much support the idea of autonomous weapons has in the military-industrial sector - it seems that everyone is working on similar programs. The most shocking angle of all, is how willing people are to build this technology - like, the cool factor overrides any moral or ethical issues, and even bringing up a question of ethics around these technologies will get you segregated from the 'cool hunter' classes...

shrimp_emoji 7y ago
I'm down for it. There's no stopping acceleration. And war, especially modern war, isn't a human task. Humans are bad at it, and it's bad for humans. Cool, precise machines though? No fear, no boredom, no hunger, no sleep. What's not to love? And it's chic and cyberpunk af. They better be smart and unhackable and free of bugs though.
- supergauntlet 7y ago
  > And it's chic and cyberpunk af I actually can't think of something more cyberpunk dystopia we-are-the-bad-guys than mindless killing machines that uphold imperialism. > They better be smart and unhackable and free of bugs though. Damn it, this is a joke that I misread, right? Surely you're not serious?
  - fit2rule 7y ago
    >uphold imperialism Yeah, this is the rub. Better weapons systems mean easier tyranny. I couldn't imagine what life is going to be like when there are fleets of these things patrolling cities, but I guess we're going to find out soon enough. I imagine a scenario akin to Hong Kong - 2 million people, whose leaders are suddenly rendered unconscious mid-march by a fleet of drones.
    - derefr 7y ago
      Imagine if you will, though: getting to the point where these things can be mostly-3D-printed and pumped out in garages. In est: guerilla drone war.
jcranberry 7y ago
I don't see how they're more unethical than any other weapon made to kill.
- nothrabannosir 7y ago
  They aren’t. Conventional weapons manufacturers don’t have a great cool factor. See Masters of War by Bob Dylan for a popular take on this.
- cheeseomlit 7y ago
  When you order a soldier to commit a war crime he might refuse. A machine never refuses.
  - 7952 7y ago
    Of course some crimes are committed by soldiers who are actively disobeying orders. An autonomous weapon is not going to feel any of the emotions that lead soldiers to do terrible things.
  - squarefoot 7y ago
    This. Also a machine doesn't come back with PTSD, wounded or in a coffin, so there are no parents, relatives and friends finally realizing the true costs of war.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    The flip side of this argument is that an effective army needs people who to a large degree don't refuse orders.
  - rmtech 7y ago
    He might but humans have this amazing track record of slaughtering each other. Recently (1990s) with machetes in Rwanda. Very low tech. I don't trust humans to avoid war crimes. Robots could have protections built in in a way that international orgs can verify.
    - 7y ago
analognoise 7y ago
The moral and ethical issues aren't unidirectionally bad - you're building things that keep your side safe/secure and ensure a win. Those are your friends and neighbors on the battlefield - they aren't unthinking stormtroopers, they're the people you went to school with. Even guided missiles, which seem indiscriminate, are much more precise and limit collateral damage. 50 years ago the alternative was carpet bombing - a guided missile produces much more targeted damage. You can argue that guided missiles save lives - if you want someone dead enough that you're willing to kill everyone around them, having an option to just knock them out seems much more humane (especially to the kids on the nearby playground). Plus, I'd absolutely hate to be the side that didn't uparmor with autonomous systems - you'd get creamed. Like it or not, it's a part of the battlefield now. I'm not a fan of us bringing back tactical nuclear (low yield) munitions, but that's apparently also happening. AND the work can be totally badass, the stability/pay is good, and you just get more valuable as you age (unlike being, say, a front end web developer). Plus seeing something you built go out to the range and tear apart a tank/knock down an RPG/launch into space/whatever is really, really dang cool.
- lawlessone 7y ago
  >they aren't unthinking stormtroopers, They aren't but the bots and drones are.
  - mullingitover 7y ago
    Those aren't unthinking bots, those are my caretakers in my old age.
- vangelis 7y ago
  Maybe we can set up an automated slaughter factory for immigrants from the global south at the border. It'll be pretty dang cool.
  - 15155 7y ago
    https://www.wired.com/2007/06/for-years-and-y/ https://www.wired.com/2007/06/for-years-and-y/ If these existed, would people continue attempt to cross illegally? The thought-provoking argument is that these pieces of technology, if foolproof, would go completely unused as people inherently value their lives (but not laws.)
matmann2001 7y ago
>The most shocking angle of all, is how willing people are to build this technology - like, the cool factor overrides any moral or ethical issues People tell themselves all sorts of things to justify this kind of cognitive dissonance. The predominant arguments I've seen are: A) Technology isn't good/bad, it's how you use it. And fortunately for the engineers, the tech will be used far away by people they'll never meet and the details of which will remain classified. Out of sight, out of mind. B) If we don't build it, someone else will. And we don't want this tech to fall into our enemy's hands first, do we? Best defense is a good offense.
- setr 7y ago
  >B) If we don't build it, someone else will. And we don't want this tech to fall into our enemy's hands first, do we? Best defense is a good offense. I'm not actually clear on what's incorrect about this logic -- unless there's some kind of agreement across all superpowers not to research this subject, or the subject itself is not actually beneficial to research.. why would you assume that none of your potential adversaries are researching it? And once you recognize that they might research it, and that if they did research it, and you didn't, they might switch from potential adversary to actual adversary (as they now believe themselves to have the upper hand), the only moral and ethical thing to do ... is to research it yourself! Perhaps the more moral and ethical thing is to give away the technology once you have it, so that you yourself won't have the chance to be aggressor ... but otherwise, I'm not sure how you can justify not researching it (war, and the potential for it, exists regardless of whether you want it to)
  - astazangasta 7y ago
    The main problem with this logic is it is much easier to steal technology than invent it, so by doing this you are not only assuring your enemies will end up with that scary tech, you are building it for them.
  - matmann2001 7y ago
    > I'm not actually clear on what's incorrect about this logic It's this same logic that gave us The Cold War.