5 ms·

It is better to have AI weapons fighting each other, then to have 19-24 years old fighting each other.

by neatze 5y ago

the_only_law 5y ago
I imagine in a number of cases it will be more like AI weapons fighting 19-24 year olds.
- neatze 5y ago
  True, but what option will you choice: 1. Send trained 19-30 years old to risk there's life, minimum civilian casualties, but highest chance of combat casualties. 2. Bomb urban area out of existence, with massive civilian casualties, medium chance of combat casualties. 3. Send terminators with medium civilian causalities and 0 combat casualties.
  - mywittyname 5y ago
    I wonder how developed nations will deal with #3s being deployed on their shores. It might be much easier to sneak in Terminators than any sorts of bombs. And the terror factor would be off the charts.
  - yboris 5y ago
    If you take people out of war, wars are more likely to happen. There will be less opposition from the public when it's just "toasters" and "microwaves" (electronics) being sent overseas to fight "the bad guys". Given the track record of how many unjust wars that have been fought, we need more preventative measures against wars, not more technology to make wars easier and more palatable.
yboris 5y ago
Are you thinking battles happen in open fields with no one around other than rows of opposing forces? Do you think no bad actors are going to have access to such weapons? The world is a lot more complex than what you describe.
- neatze 5y ago
  How did you made such conclusions from my sentence, I don't really understand. Civilians will suffer the most in wars and in violent conflict times. Urban warfare is the highest intensity warfare, with highest casualty rates both combat and civilians. First failed attempt of drone attack with chemical weapon was in 90's in Japan, I believe this if first recorded attempt of terrorist attack using drone. AI warfare with sci-fi flying, crawling, walking terminators will be more humane then carpet bombing population into oblivion (Soviet–Afghan War and Vietnam War), it will have substantially less combat and civilian casualties, in general it will increase kinetics (weapons effects), precision, accuracy, and decisiveness (RISTA).
  - yboris 5y ago
    You original sentence was implying that the deaths would occur to just 19-24 year olds - which clearly isn't going to be the case if the warfare happens in civilian quarters. You created a false dichotomy - as if those are the only two outcomes and we have to choose between them. When obviously (as your follow up comment shows), there are other scenarios where numerous innocent non-combatants will die.

It is better to have AI weapons fighting each other, then to have 19-24 years old fighting each other.

by neatze 5y ago

It is better to have AI weapons fighting each other, then to have 19-24 years old fighting each other.

the_only_law 5y ago

I imagine in a number of cases it will be more like AI weapons fighting 19-24 year olds.

neatze 5y ago
True, but what option will you choice: 1. Send trained 19-30 years old to risk there's life, minimum civilian casualties, but highest chance of combat casualties. 2. Bomb urban area out of existence, with massive civilian casualties, medium chance of combat casualties. 3. Send terminators with medium civilian causalities and 0 combat casualties.
- mywittyname 5y ago
  I wonder how developed nations will deal with #3s being deployed on their shores. It might be much easier to sneak in Terminators than any sorts of bombs. And the terror factor would be off the charts.
- yboris 5y ago
  If you take people out of war, wars are more likely to happen. There will be less opposition from the public when it's just "toasters" and "microwaves" (electronics) being sent overseas to fight "the bad guys". Given the track record of how many unjust wars that have been fought, we need more preventative measures against wars, not more technology to make wars easier and more palatable.

yboris 5y ago

Are you thinking battles happen in open fields with no one around other than rows of opposing forces? Do you think no bad actors are going to have access to such weapons? The world is a lot more complex than what you describe.

neatze 5y ago
How did you made such conclusions from my sentence, I don't really understand. Civilians will suffer the most in wars and in violent conflict times. Urban warfare is the highest intensity warfare, with highest casualty rates both combat and civilians. First failed attempt of drone attack with chemical weapon was in 90's in Japan, I believe this if first recorded attempt of terrorist attack using drone. AI warfare with sci-fi flying, crawling, walking terminators will be more humane then carpet bombing population into oblivion (Soviet–Afghan War and Vietnam War), it will have substantially less combat and civilian casualties, in general it will increase kinetics (weapons effects), precision, accuracy, and decisiveness (RISTA).
- yboris 5y ago
  You original sentence was implying that the deaths would occur to just 19-24 year olds - which clearly isn't going to be the case if the warfare happens in civilian quarters. You created a false dichotomy - as if those are the only two outcomes and we have to choose between them. When obviously (as your follow up comment shows), there are other scenarios where numerous innocent non-combatants will die.