4 ms·

"Responsible" seems pretty easy: follow the rules of engagement. What if a convoy passes a group of nuns? What if the nuns "fire without waiting"? Should we

by arh68 7y ago

"Responsible" seems pretty easy: follow the rules of engagement. What if a convoy passes a group of nuns? What if the nuns "fire without waiting"? Should we let the nuns have the "critical advantage" of first shot? Well, yes, it'd be absurd to do otherwise. If some other country wants to develop auto kill bots that commit war crimes, I don't think we have an imperative to match them.

ethbro 7y ago
That's not the problem parent is talking about. They're talking about an autonomy gap. Tolerant rules of engagement are feasible because reactions are "similar" in timescale. Enemy fires on you, you fire back, etc. But there are many developments that make that system less tenable. Firstly, increased weapon lethality. When the first shot has a 90%+ kill probability (say, putting a Hellfire missile on a civilian vehicle), can you afford to let the enemy take the first shot? Or do your rules account for reality and back up a step? Maybe now, radar detection, firing preparations, or even entering a given airspace are sufficiently provocative to counterattack. In literature and experience, this is casualty modeling moving from attrition (some constant, scaled by time) to volley (majority of casualties caused in bursts, at specific points in time). Secondly, and this specific issue: reaction time between autonomous vs manual systems. If an opponent is using autonomous targeting and engagement, and you're using autonomous targeting and manual engagement, there may be some orders of magnitude difference in reaction time. Coupled with the first point, that may mean your entire force is wiped out before you have a chance to react.
- bumby 7y ago
  The idea of a preemptive attack in the face of potentially large risks is nothing new and not unique to weapons utilizing AI.[1][2] [1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/3109845?seq=1 https://www.jstor.org/stable/3109845?seq=1 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_One_Percent_Doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_One_Percent_Doctrine
  - ethbro 7y ago
    It's not. And it's led to a reevaluation of rules in those other spaces too.

by arh68 7y ago

ethbro 7y ago

That's not the problem parent is talking about. They're talking about an autonomy gap. Tolerant rules of engagement are feasible because reactions are "similar" in timescale. Enemy fires on you, you fire back, etc. But there are many developments that make that system less tenable. Firstly, increased weapon lethality. When the first shot has a 90%+ kill probability (say, putting a Hellfire missile on a civilian vehicle), can you afford to let the enemy take the first shot? Or do your rules account for reality and back up a step? Maybe now, radar detection, firing preparations, or even entering a given airspace are sufficiently provocative to counterattack. In literature and experience, this is casualty modeling moving from attrition (some constant, scaled by time) to volley (majority of casualties caused in bursts, at specific points in time). Secondly, and this specific issue: reaction time between autonomous vs manual systems. If an opponent is using autonomous targeting and engagement, and you're using autonomous targeting and manual engagement, there may be some orders of magnitude difference in reaction time. Coupled with the first point, that may mean your entire force is wiped out before you have a chance to react.

bumby 7y ago
The idea of a preemptive attack in the face of potentially large risks is nothing new and not unique to weapons utilizing AI.[1][2] [1] https://www.jstor.org/stable/3109845?seq=1 https://www.jstor.org/stable/3109845?seq=1 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_One_Percent_Doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_One_Percent_Doctrine
- ethbro 7y ago
  It's not. And it's led to a reevaluation of rules in those other spaces too.