4 ms·

The only way drones and other devices like robo-snipers could be thought of ethical is if the conflicts are drone vs drone and robot vs robot. Basically, this

The only way drones and other devices like robo-snipers could be thought of ethical is if the conflicts are drone vs drone and robot vs robot. Basically, this seems like a terrible idea, and will enable futher distancing between crime/action and responsibility.

ta8645 6y ago
That's way too simplistic. If one of these drones could have killed Hitler and saved millions of innocent people, would you still say it's not ethical? The reason to dislike these machines is because of the practical problem of making sure they only target bad-guys. That said... their continued development and deployment is essentially inevitable anyway.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  > If one of these drones could have killed Hitler and saved millions of innocent people, would you still say it's not ethical? I don't think a hypothetical requiring time travel to obtain 20/20 hindsight is a very reasonable basis for discussion here.
  - ta8645 6y ago
    Come on, that's not a charitable interpretation of my argument. It's meant to highlight the idea that there are targets _today_ that would make the world a better place if we could kill them. And it doesn't matter what tool we use to do so, it's still an ethical action. I don't like the idea of these devices very much, I see the problem with controlling them. But there's no way to stop them from being created. The required technologies are too pervasive and reproducible.
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      > It's meant to highlight the idea that there are targets _today_ that would make the world a better place if we could kill them. We think it would. We thought that about knocking off Saddam Hussein, but the resulting power vacuum killed a lot more than he ever did and gave rise to ISIS. It turns out predicting "if we kill this guy, it's good" can be far more difficult than you're making it out to be. Hell, we don't even know if killing Hitler would've been good; it might've given rise to someone far more competent.
      - ta8645 6y ago
        That argument has absolutely nothing to do with this article. Not saying I disagree, but it's true or false regardless if we kill with a robot or not. It's irrelevant to the discussion.
      - Rule35 6y ago
        Killing Saddam didn't require locking all the Baathists in prison together with other criminals and letting them foment revolution. Killing Saddam didn't require trying to hand control back over to the Iraqis way too early, over and over again. We killed Hitler and it's been a net good because we're still in Germany making sure 80 years later. If we'd planned for something similar in Iraq we might not have fucked it up so badly.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

ta8645 6y ago

That's way too simplistic. If one of these drones could have killed Hitler and saved millions of innocent people, would you still say it's not ethical? The reason to dislike these machines is because of the practical problem of making sure they only target bad-guys. That said... their continued development and deployment is essentially inevitable anyway.

ceejayoz 6y ago
> If one of these drones could have killed Hitler and saved millions of innocent people, would you still say it's not ethical? I don't think a hypothetical requiring time travel to obtain 20/20 hindsight is a very reasonable basis for discussion here.
- ta8645 6y ago
  Come on, that's not a charitable interpretation of my argument. It's meant to highlight the idea that there are targets _today_ that would make the world a better place if we could kill them. And it doesn't matter what tool we use to do so, it's still an ethical action. I don't like the idea of these devices very much, I see the problem with controlling them. But there's no way to stop them from being created. The required technologies are too pervasive and reproducible.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    > It's meant to highlight the idea that there are targets _today_ that would make the world a better place if we could kill them. We think it would. We thought that about knocking off Saddam Hussein, but the resulting power vacuum killed a lot more than he ever did and gave rise to ISIS. It turns out predicting "if we kill this guy, it's good" can be far more difficult than you're making it out to be. Hell, we don't even know if killing Hitler would've been good; it might've given rise to someone far more competent.
    - ta8645 6y ago
      That argument has absolutely nothing to do with this article. Not saying I disagree, but it's true or false regardless if we kill with a robot or not. It's irrelevant to the discussion.
    - Rule35 6y ago
      Killing Saddam didn't require locking all the Baathists in prison together with other criminals and letting them foment revolution. Killing Saddam didn't require trying to hand control back over to the Iraqis way too early, over and over again. We killed Hitler and it's been a net good because we're still in Germany making sure 80 years later. If we'd planned for something similar in Iraq we might not have fucked it up so badly.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]