7 ms·

Probably "rogue" in the sense that direct control was not maintained at all times. The human controller told the drone to pull the trigger when the time was rig

Probably "rogue" in the sense that direct control was not maintained at all times. The human controller told the drone to pull the trigger when the time was right, and the drone itself made the call as to when that was. It is a bit of sensationalizing for the sake of the headline though.

setr 5y ago
the problem is that "rogue" implies some kind of malfunction -- it acted against a stand-down order and killed anyways. In this case, it seems the drone was supposed to do exactly that, and that's perhaps far more dangerous -- this is the first kill where the drone was approved to determine kill targets, and execute that decision, with no human to verify. This really shouldn't be a goal we have in the first place -- to remove humans from the decision loop -- and yet apparently here it is.
- nradov 5y ago
  This is nothing new. The US military developed a naval mine that could launch a torpedo to kill targets without humans in the decision loop back in 1979. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_60_CAPTOR?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_60_CAPTOR?wprov=sfla1
  - setr 5y ago
    Hm. That’s interesting — it’s an upgraded mine. I think the indiscriminate nature of it makes it more acceptable, at least to me; you’re creating a no-go zone for all — allies, enemies and nuetrals. With this you’re creating a no-go zone for your enemies, and very likely safe for your allies (who you can tag properly with markers), but the difference between enemy and neutral is rather unclear (especially in the Middle East, where the line between combatant and civilian is very thin, almost indistinguishable even to humans on-site)
    - wearywanderer 5y ago
      CAPTOR mines are discriminate. They can recognize different ships by sound and won't fire on friendly ships.
- PeterisP 5y ago
  I believe the goal is driven by the desire for the drone to continue to operate even if humans are not reachable because of communications jamming - if you're fighting against some low-resourced guerillas, you can have humans in the decision loop, but if the loitering munitions/drones are to be used against an opponent with some air defence and EW/ECM systems (e.g. the recent Azerbaijan-Armenia war, where Turkish drones/loitering munitions systems were widely used, especially against AD systems) then an autonomous operation capability seems a quite desirable goal for practical reasons.

setr 5y ago

the problem is that "rogue" implies some kind of malfunction -- it acted against a stand-down order and killed anyways. In this case, it seems the drone was supposed to do exactly that, and that's perhaps far more dangerous -- this is the first kill where the drone was approved to determine kill targets, and execute that decision, with no human to verify. This really shouldn't be a goal we have in the first place -- to remove humans from the decision loop -- and yet apparently here it is.

nradov 5y ago
This is nothing new. The US military developed a naval mine that could launch a torpedo to kill targets without humans in the decision loop back in 1979. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_60_CAPTOR?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_60_CAPTOR?wprov=sfla1
- setr 5y ago
  Hm. That’s interesting — it’s an upgraded mine. I think the indiscriminate nature of it makes it more acceptable, at least to me; you’re creating a no-go zone for all — allies, enemies and nuetrals. With this you’re creating a no-go zone for your enemies, and very likely safe for your allies (who you can tag properly with markers), but the difference between enemy and neutral is rather unclear (especially in the Middle East, where the line between combatant and civilian is very thin, almost indistinguishable even to humans on-site)
  - wearywanderer 5y ago
    CAPTOR mines are discriminate. They can recognize different ships by sound and won't fire on friendly ships.
PeterisP 5y ago
I believe the goal is driven by the desire for the drone to continue to operate even if humans are not reachable because of communications jamming - if you're fighting against some low-resourced guerillas, you can have humans in the decision loop, but if the loitering munitions/drones are to be used against an opponent with some air defence and EW/ECM systems (e.g. the recent Azerbaijan-Armenia war, where Turkish drones/loitering munitions systems were widely used, especially against AD systems) then an autonomous operation capability seems a quite desirable goal for practical reasons.