3 ms·
It's ridiculous to think that all the advanced countries aren't working on exactly this. To some extent, it totally makes sense. Defining an area as a kill zon
by altcognito 6y ago
It's ridiculous to think that all the advanced countries aren't working on exactly this. To some extent, it totally makes sense.
Defining an area as a kill zone and a bomb that is dropped on a particular area aren't all that different.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- zamadatix 6y agoIn intent no, in unintended risk yes. And not in a "collateral damage" kind of way, more in a "it's hard to use a bomb in a way the damage zone becomes 100x bigger than intended".
- thesuperbigfrog 6y ago>> It's ridiculous to think that all the advanced countries aren't working on exactly this. They are. And a centralized AI will be needed to coordinate all of the autonomous weapon systems and react faster than the bad guys--SkyNet is coming too.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago> a centralized AI will be needed to coordinate all of the autonomous weapon systems Why? At a tactical level, an AI to coordinate a battlefield makes sense. (Speed of light means local computing has an advantage, particularly with directed energy weapons.) And an AI to advise on strategy, and coördinate those battlefield AIs, makes sense. But while battles are mechanical, war is political. At the point that the human becomes replaceable we’d have an AI substitute for government, which is a long way away. For grand strategic concerns, we have nukes, and those still fly slowly and detectably enough that an AI commanding counterstrike is unnecessary. (Unless submarine platforms become detectable and thus destroyable in a first strike.)
- freeone3000 6y agoWhy? Each individual system is more than capable of simply fulfilling tactics on their own. We're not short computing power! Central coordination is a risk to be avouded -- each individual drone can simply be Skynet all in their own.
- bumbada 6y agoThe bad guys is the centralized AI.