7 ms·

There is no ethical dilemma here at all, because these automated killing machines aren't necessary. Borders are defended all over the world by conventional mean

by gizmo 6y ago

There is no ethical dilemma here at all, because these automated killing machines aren't necessary. Borders are defended all over the world by conventional means. Execution by robot is another step towards dystopia, and we should absolutely reject the notion that this is some morally complicated issue.

flyinglizard 6y ago
Israel has three hostile borders with a close to an active war going on (Lebanon, Syria, Gaza).
marshmallow_12 6y ago
>Borders are defended all over the world by conventional means. I think you are wrong. most countries do a terrible job of efficiently- or even effectively- defending borders. I'm not making a political statement, but just look how many illegal immigrants get into US, EU, etc. Even Israel, which is relatively small, has to invest vast resources into maintaining their fences. Please note, i don't want to be dragged into a political discussion, i'm simply explaining why i think your are wrong.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  > I'm not making a political statement, but just look how many illegal immigrants get into US, EU, etc. That's not inefficient/ineffective, the system is just optimized for different things. It ensures a cheap and compliant labor force for things like agriculture.
- maxlybbert 6y ago
  Plenty of borders around the world are peaceful, and there isn’t much “defending” going on. Those are maintained without much trouble. If we narrow the discussion to borders that aren’t very peaceful, there aren’t many successful solutions. It looks like “nothing gets through” works, but “only approved traffic gets through” doesn’t work.
  - marshmallow_12 6y ago
    My argument is, that there is vast scope for robots to improve border security, unlike what op was saying
thesuperbigfrog 6y ago
Nuclear weapons are not necessary either, but they certainly do give an adversary pause when considering to attack you. Autonomous weapon systems are no different. They raise the deterrence factor so that you are not likely to be attacked by simply having the capability and your adversary knowing that you have the capability.
- swarnie_ 6y ago
  > Nuclear weapons are not necessary either, but they certainly do give an adversary pause when considering to attack you. This is something i've always found weird... Nukes arguably make the world safer by your definition one but particular country gets to decide who is safe and who gets a free conversion to democracy. Its maddening.
  - thesuperbigfrog 6y ago
    > Nukes arguably make the world safer It depends on who has them and how they use them. Autonomous weapon systems are (theoretically) much more precise and don't leave radioactive destruction in their wake (unless they are nuclear-armed autonomous weapons systems--that's a terrifying thought). The greater precision and less permanent nature means they are more likely to be used offensively rather than just held in strategic reserve as most nuclear arsenals are.
    - TeMPOraL 6y ago
      Conventional autonomous weapons will not be enough to be a replacement for nukes - a peer nation can fight them off with their own autonomous weapons, so there's no MAD at play. What makes nukes unique, and MAD work, is the simple observation known to every nation: if one country decides to nuke another, there's nothing anyone can do about this - once the decision is made and the button is pressed, the other country turns into glass. But since nukes fly longer than the time it takes to detect and launch a retaliation strike, no one dares to launch first because they'll get glassed too, and there's also nothing anyone can do about it. Conventional weapons, autonomous or not, can't unleash destruction at necessary scale and certainty.
whatthesmack 6y ago
"Borders all over the world" don't typically have Hezbollah shooting rockets over the border into civilian areas on a regular basis. This is a very unique scenario, and the best response to arbitrary rocket fire, if possible, is an automated and precise response. I highly doubt they're inventing these technologies for fun... there is a defensive need. It is a morally complex issue, because the whole scenario is more intricate than it seems you believe it to be.
- LorenPechtel 6y ago
  Exactly. Roboguns enforcing the border are little different than a minefield except they're much easier to maintain and dismantle, as well as being more reliable and immune to sweeping. It's a no-go zone in either case. Like with a minefield, morally fine when marked, very immoral if not marked.
- lucian1900 6y ago
  Not all borders are enforced by violent colonisers that force a violent response, either. What’s your point?
  - amitport 6y ago
    Sure, Hezbollah has a right to fire at civilians (which include other Muslims BTW). They're the "good guys": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah
    - lucian1900 6y ago
      It doesn’t even compares with the war crimes of the IDF alone, without even getting into the other aspects of the occupation of Palestine.
      - amitport 6y ago
        It really doesn't compare. Without even getting into the other aspects of Hezbollah's occupation of lebanon. People reading this, feeling confused, and think this is an actual discussion. Please go on and read about the topic on wikipedia.
credit_guy 6y ago
It's not more morally reprehensible than landmines. Borders all over the world use landmines, one of the most common weapons for area denial. Remote controlled or autonomous machine guns have the advantage that you can retire them more easily. With landmines, if you misplaced the map, you have a problem. Even if you still have the map you have a problem: what if the map is only 99% accurate?
- gizmo 6y ago
  164 states have already signed an anti-personnel mine treaty, and more countries will join in the coming years. 48 million land mines have already been destroyed because of this Ottawa treaty, and this is a moral good. There is a strong movement for banning anti-personnel mines precisely because they are horrific weapons that kill and maim indiscriminately.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > precisely because they are horrific weapons that kill and maim indiscriminately The problem with mines is less that they are indiscriminate and more that they outlast their battles.
    - analog31 6y ago
      Those are two sides of the same coin, still indiscriminate if they are not limited in both time and target.
      - credit_guy 6y ago
        If discrimination in terms of time is what concerns you, then I guess you'll welcome this new development of autonomous machine guns used for area denial, right? They address exactly the problem, after all.
- deleted 6y ago
jxcole 6y ago
You're right it's not an ethical dilemma at all, but your reasons are completely off. All killing of humans by other humans is unethical, regardless of technology. Saying there is a dilemma implies that somehow a human would make killing another human ok. I find the whole tone of this article to be ridiculous...I would love to find an actual discussion in which an ethicist rationalizes war, and if you can't find that then the implication that machines somehow make the situation less ethical is ridiculous.
- Teever 6y ago
  > All killing of humans by other humans is unethical It's going to be difficult for you to find many people who agree with this assertion. Most people awknowledge the necessity of self defense, and many others who agree with the death or penalty agree with the idea of death as punishment for certain classes of crimes. Now there's an argument to be made about a judicial process being followed or the issue with unintended consequences/blowback but it's a hard sell to your average person that a brutal dictator shouldn't be killed.
Lammy 6y ago
Borders are a fake idea in an age when our “elite” are rich enough to be global and stateless. Look at people straight-up buying NZ citizenship, for example. The ultimate divide-and-conquer for humanity as long as the “other side” can be made to sound scary enough.
philwelch 6y ago
South Korea uses unmanned sentry guns to defend the DMZ. This gives them some degree of protection from another Northern invasion, even without US assistance. If I were to characterize any part of Korea as a “dystopia”, it wouldn’t be the part that defends itself with robot machine guns. Indeed, the robot machine guns were invented to protect South Korea from falling under the dystopia that has overrun the North.
- lucian1900 6y ago
  Which side of Korea was bombed to the ground by the US in a war that has still not ended?
  - vorpalhex 6y ago
    Which side of Korea is still firing missiles at it's neighbors and running a dystopian fascist state?
    - samatman 6y ago
      The only way you can insult fascists is by comparing them to communists, who are objectively worse by the metric of democide.
    - lucian1900 6y ago
      Until when was South Korea openly a fascist military dictatorship? Interestingly it’s often ignored. If you believe what the CIA says about other countries, you’ll believe lots of lies.
  - creato 6y ago
    What is your point? Would you rather be in North Korea or South Korea?
    - snovv_crash 6y ago
      And more importantly, would you rather put the north in charge of the south, or the south in charge of the north? Which scenario do you think would turn out better for the people who live there?

by gizmo 6y ago

flyinglizard 6y ago

Israel has three hostile borders with a close to an active war going on (Lebanon, Syria, Gaza).

marshmallow_12 6y ago

>Borders are defended all over the world by conventional means. I think you are wrong. most countries do a terrible job of efficiently- or even effectively- defending borders. I'm not making a political statement, but just look how many illegal immigrants get into US, EU, etc. Even Israel, which is relatively small, has to invest vast resources into maintaining their fences. Please note, i don't want to be dragged into a political discussion, i'm simply explaining why i think your are wrong.

ceejayoz 6y ago
> I'm not making a political statement, but just look how many illegal immigrants get into US, EU, etc. That's not inefficient/ineffective, the system is just optimized for different things. It ensures a cheap and compliant labor force for things like agriculture.
maxlybbert 6y ago
Plenty of borders around the world are peaceful, and there isn’t much “defending” going on. Those are maintained without much trouble. If we narrow the discussion to borders that aren’t very peaceful, there aren’t many successful solutions. It looks like “nothing gets through” works, but “only approved traffic gets through” doesn’t work.
- marshmallow_12 6y ago
  My argument is, that there is vast scope for robots to improve border security, unlike what op was saying

thesuperbigfrog 6y ago

Nuclear weapons are not necessary either, but they certainly do give an adversary pause when considering to attack you. Autonomous weapon systems are no different. They raise the deterrence factor so that you are not likely to be attacked by simply having the capability and your adversary knowing that you have the capability.

swarnie_ 6y ago
> Nuclear weapons are not necessary either, but they certainly do give an adversary pause when considering to attack you. This is something i've always found weird... Nukes arguably make the world safer by your definition one but particular country gets to decide who is safe and who gets a free conversion to democracy. Its maddening.
- thesuperbigfrog 6y ago
  > Nukes arguably make the world safer It depends on who has them and how they use them. Autonomous weapon systems are (theoretically) much more precise and don't leave radioactive destruction in their wake (unless they are nuclear-armed autonomous weapons systems--that's a terrifying thought). The greater precision and less permanent nature means they are more likely to be used offensively rather than just held in strategic reserve as most nuclear arsenals are.
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    Conventional autonomous weapons will not be enough to be a replacement for nukes - a peer nation can fight them off with their own autonomous weapons, so there's no MAD at play. What makes nukes unique, and MAD work, is the simple observation known to every nation: if one country decides to nuke another, there's nothing anyone can do about this - once the decision is made and the button is pressed, the other country turns into glass. But since nukes fly longer than the time it takes to detect and launch a retaliation strike, no one dares to launch first because they'll get glassed too, and there's also nothing anyone can do about it. Conventional weapons, autonomous or not, can't unleash destruction at necessary scale and certainty.

whatthesmack 6y ago

"Borders all over the world" don't typically have Hezbollah shooting rockets over the border into civilian areas on a regular basis. This is a very unique scenario, and the best response to arbitrary rocket fire, if possible, is an automated and precise response. I highly doubt they're inventing these technologies for fun... there is a defensive need. It is a morally complex issue, because the whole scenario is more intricate than it seems you believe it to be.

LorenPechtel 6y ago
Exactly. Roboguns enforcing the border are little different than a minefield except they're much easier to maintain and dismantle, as well as being more reliable and immune to sweeping. It's a no-go zone in either case. Like with a minefield, morally fine when marked, very immoral if not marked.
lucian1900 6y ago
Not all borders are enforced by violent colonisers that force a violent response, either. What’s your point?
- amitport 6y ago
  Sure, Hezbollah has a right to fire at civilians (which include other Muslims BTW). They're the "good guys": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah
  - lucian1900 6y ago
    It doesn’t even compares with the war crimes of the IDF alone, without even getting into the other aspects of the occupation of Palestine.
    - amitport 6y ago
      It really doesn't compare. Without even getting into the other aspects of Hezbollah's occupation of lebanon. People reading this, feeling confused, and think this is an actual discussion. Please go on and read about the topic on wikipedia.

credit_guy 6y ago

It's not more morally reprehensible than landmines. Borders all over the world use landmines, one of the most common weapons for area denial. Remote controlled or autonomous machine guns have the advantage that you can retire them more easily. With landmines, if you misplaced the map, you have a problem. Even if you still have the map you have a problem: what if the map is only 99% accurate?

gizmo 6y ago
164 states have already signed an anti-personnel mine treaty, and more countries will join in the coming years. 48 million land mines have already been destroyed because of this Ottawa treaty, and this is a moral good. There is a strong movement for banning anti-personnel mines precisely because they are horrific weapons that kill and maim indiscriminately.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > precisely because they are horrific weapons that kill and maim indiscriminately The problem with mines is less that they are indiscriminate and more that they outlast their battles.
  - analog31 6y ago
    Those are two sides of the same coin, still indiscriminate if they are not limited in both time and target.
    - credit_guy 6y ago
      If discrimination in terms of time is what concerns you, then I guess you'll welcome this new development of autonomous machine guns used for area denial, right? They address exactly the problem, after all.
deleted 6y ago

jxcole 6y ago

You're right it's not an ethical dilemma at all, but your reasons are completely off. All killing of humans by other humans is unethical, regardless of technology. Saying there is a dilemma implies that somehow a human would make killing another human ok. I find the whole tone of this article to be ridiculous...I would love to find an actual discussion in which an ethicist rationalizes war, and if you can't find that then the implication that machines somehow make the situation less ethical is ridiculous.

Teever 6y ago
> All killing of humans by other humans is unethical It's going to be difficult for you to find many people who agree with this assertion. Most people awknowledge the necessity of self defense, and many others who agree with the death or penalty agree with the idea of death as punishment for certain classes of crimes. Now there's an argument to be made about a judicial process being followed or the issue with unintended consequences/blowback but it's a hard sell to your average person that a brutal dictator shouldn't be killed.

Lammy 6y ago

Borders are a fake idea in an age when our “elite” are rich enough to be global and stateless. Look at people straight-up buying NZ citizenship, for example. The ultimate divide-and-conquer for humanity as long as the “other side” can be made to sound scary enough.

philwelch 6y ago

South Korea uses unmanned sentry guns to defend the DMZ. This gives them some degree of protection from another Northern invasion, even without US assistance. If I were to characterize any part of Korea as a “dystopia”, it wouldn’t be the part that defends itself with robot machine guns. Indeed, the robot machine guns were invented to protect South Korea from falling under the dystopia that has overrun the North.

lucian1900 6y ago
Which side of Korea was bombed to the ground by the US in a war that has still not ended?
- vorpalhex 6y ago
  Which side of Korea is still firing missiles at it's neighbors and running a dystopian fascist state?
  - samatman 6y ago
    The only way you can insult fascists is by comparing them to communists, who are objectively worse by the metric of democide.
  - lucian1900 6y ago
    Until when was South Korea openly a fascist military dictatorship? Interestingly it’s often ignored. If you believe what the CIA says about other countries, you’ll believe lots of lies.
- creato 6y ago
  What is your point? Would you rather be in North Korea or South Korea?
  - snovv_crash 6y ago
    And more importantly, would you rather put the north in charge of the south, or the south in charge of the north? Which scenario do you think would turn out better for the people who live there?