4 ms·

So I have two options. I can either hide the fact that I find that video incredibly cool, or just be open and honest about it. If you’re wondering why it’s an

So I have two options. I can either hide the fact that I find that video incredibly cool, or just be open and honest about it. If you’re wondering why it’s an effective video, it’s because it makes me want one. I don’t even have anything to blow up. That’s the essence of effective marketing. We can also recognize that in the wrong hands, it’s an evil device. But so is a gun. And I would imagine the reactions to the first portable guns may have been similar. Lots of people find guns cool, and I have lots of fond memories of shooting with my dad and a friend. Learned about gun safety and how to properly care for one. I also learned I wasn’t responsible enough to keep one, so I’ve never bought one. This is obviously different. But it’s not inconceivable that in the future, you might be able to deploy a sentry quadcopter designed to chase down (not destroy) someone who just attacked you. I was shocked that there was a drive-by shooting in my neighborhood a few months ago. Would’ve totally sic’d a drone on them the moment I heard the gunshots. Dunno. Sometimes I feel lonely for feeling this way, when the only acceptable social response is outrage or indignation. It’s cool to blow things up, and humans have had a long and proud tradition of making things go boom. The key is to make sure that this tech won’t have unforeseen consequences. But as far as I can tell, the consequences appear to be foreseen in this case. It’s a drone that goes boom when next to someone. All that said, I agree that it’s a terrible idea to let it decide to do this automatically. But in a warzone, it’s not impossible to imagine some heuristics that might make sense in certain highly constrained circumstances. Of course, most dictators don’t really care about minimizing civilian casualties, and dictatorships seem like the target audience. But, ditto for guns.

TchoBeer 5y ago
>humans have had a long and proud tradition of making things go boom. Certainly long, but I'm not particularly proud of the many ways we've found to kill each other.
- undersuit 5y ago
  Yeah but fireworks are fun.
darkerside 5y ago
> But as far as I can tell, the consequences appear to be foreseen in this case. It’s a drone that goes boom when next to someone. The immediate second order effect is, people start buying drones programmed to destroy a drone seeking them out. This should be much less controversial than the first drone, since it's not operating on a human target. Now the first drone needs to be able to eliminate one -- and shortly, multiple -- drone(s) before then destroying the human target. The defending drone(s) will certainly increase in number and firepower. It's basically a straight line to automated warfare in the streets with no regard for collateral damage. The hurdles, of course, would be regulation on the ability to purchase drones, and the permitted level of firepower. I don't like the idea of us negotiating the laws around that while drones are causing collateral damage in an urban (or any) environment.
- nradov 5y ago
  Ground based weapons will probably be more effective drone defenses than other drones. It just isn't practical to keep defensive drones continuously airborne, and small drones lack the payload capacity that would be needed to reliably detect and intercept other drones.
  - Aeolun 5y ago
    Automated laser that melts anything in the sky? Poor birds.
tclancy 5y ago
There’s at least a third option, but hemlock is hard to find on the ground. This is definitely r/shithackernewssays material. Why is the Jeff Goldblum character from Jurassic Park so often quoted but so rarely heard. This is literally about killing another human being and you went with “Well yeah but”.
musingsole 5y ago
I wonder how courts will ultimately classify AI face recognition when it becomes attached to lethal devices. Tripwires attached to a claymore fall under boobytrapping laws under arguments of reckless endangerment. I've heard it reasoned as there's no mind behind the assault and so it's reckless even if it harms someone breaking and entering. Facial recognition gets closer to an intelligence behind the weapon, but a less than human intelligence (less than canine?). At what point does your "tripwire" have enough intelligence to be legitimate under castle doctrine?
dclowd9901 5y ago
Man, I have such an opposite reaction. I know I could develop something like this if I tried but the thought of building something that would be used to kill someone, even a “bad” someone honestly makes me ill.
- Aeolun 5y ago
  It does not strike me as a particularly honorable way to kill someone.
  - Intermernet 5y ago
    Killing someone isn't particularly honorable.
Aeolun 5y ago
I don’t know. It didn’t look cool to me at all. I’d classify it as fairly boring. It also kind of has to explode itself to do it’s job, which feels like a waste to me. So many things you can do with a drone that are immediately useless if it blows itself up.
danparsonson 5y ago
> We can also recognize that in the wrong hands, it’s an evil device. But so is a gun. I'm not sure what your point is here? The 'but' implies that we all now agree that guns are basically OK which is not universally true, and I would say increasingly the opposite. Also your conception of 'the wrong hands' and other peoples' are not necessarily the same - one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and so on. > But it’s not inconceivable that in the future, you might be able to deploy a sentry quadcopter designed to chase down (not destroy) someone who just attacked you. I was shocked that there was a drive-by shooting in my neighborhood a few months ago. Would’ve totally sic’d a drone on them the moment I heard the gunshots. I think this is exactly what scares people - there are people who would sic killer drones on people Judge Dredd style, out of a misguided sense of moral duty; I heard about a recent case of someone using the 'stand your ground' laws to justify (and be celebrated for!) going to a neighbour's house during a robbery and shooting the thieves in the back, killing them both. Not to mention that in a future where these things are available, that drive-by would've instead been a fly-by killing and you might never know who did it.
- sillysaurusx 5y ago
  You know, your comment got to me, but probably not in the way you hoped. You talk about these people like their lives are very important, and that it's both worthy and honorable to protect them. In reality, this is what it's like: https://twitter.com/theshawwn/status/1301407648420593664 https://twitter.com/theshawwn/status/1301407648420593664 It was scary as hell to have a drive-by happen. The cops couldn't do anything. They were long gone by the time the police came. And then they came back and shot up the same place again a few hours later. If I had a drone that could track them, they may have been brought to justice. I don't see this tech the same way you do. I see it as a stepping stone towards a world where people can protect themselves and their loved ones, as they do with guns. I think we'll just need to agree to disagree. I have a lot of things I could say, but I just don't get how people can calmly live in a country that was earned through bloodshed, while decrying those who were willing to lay down their lives for you. This is a military device. It's designed to kill people, because this is one of life's unfortunate necessities. I think the people here who are saying that there's nothing honorable about killing someone should teleport themselves back to Midway in 1942 and tell your great-grandparents that, face to face.
cblconfederate 5y ago
That is not valid. Lots of people like guns because they represent self-defense and protection of their property. Much fewer people like or own hand grenades or bombs, because they have a different purpose. This falls under the latter category. Just because they are all exploding device doesn't put them all in one bag.
- sillysaurusx 5y ago
  Lots of people like guns because they win wars, too. All else being equal, I'd prefer to be on the side with the self-guided bombs. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27349361 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27349361
  - cblconfederate 5y ago
    The more humans are detached from defense capability, the worse it will get for non-authoritarian countries, because drone armies need only money and not legitimacy of the state
    - sillysaurusx 5y ago
      Unfortunately, you’re right. And it seems almost inevitable. I don’t like it either, for what it’s worth.
dragonsky 5y ago
I'm guessing that you have never been on the receiving end of an explosive device. This scares the shit out of me. Call me naive but the idea that somebody on the other side of the planet can set me as a target in a device that they just set and release is completely inhuman. If you want me dead, then do me the curtesy of at least putting your own arse on the line to achieve it. The potential for this type of device to be cobbled together is well within the capability of pretty much any reasonably funded electronics hobbyist, and I think one of the reasons that we haven't seen it more frequently is that hitherto it's not been morally acceptable. If this type of weapon becomes mainstream in government arsenals then you can kiss that goodbye.

TchoBeer 5y ago

>humans have had a long and proud tradition of making things go boom. Certainly long, but I'm not particularly proud of the many ways we've found to kill each other.

undersuit 5y ago
Yeah but fireworks are fun.

darkerside 5y ago

> But as far as I can tell, the consequences appear to be foreseen in this case. It’s a drone that goes boom when next to someone. The immediate second order effect is, people start buying drones programmed to destroy a drone seeking them out. This should be much less controversial than the first drone, since it's not operating on a human target. Now the first drone needs to be able to eliminate one -- and shortly, multiple -- drone(s) before then destroying the human target. The defending drone(s) will certainly increase in number and firepower. It's basically a straight line to automated warfare in the streets with no regard for collateral damage. The hurdles, of course, would be regulation on the ability to purchase drones, and the permitted level of firepower. I don't like the idea of us negotiating the laws around that while drones are causing collateral damage in an urban (or any) environment.

nradov 5y ago
Ground based weapons will probably be more effective drone defenses than other drones. It just isn't practical to keep defensive drones continuously airborne, and small drones lack the payload capacity that would be needed to reliably detect and intercept other drones.
- Aeolun 5y ago
  Automated laser that melts anything in the sky? Poor birds.

tclancy 5y ago

There’s at least a third option, but hemlock is hard to find on the ground. This is definitely r/shithackernewssays material. Why is the Jeff Goldblum character from Jurassic Park so often quoted but so rarely heard. This is literally about killing another human being and you went with “Well yeah but”.

musingsole 5y ago

I wonder how courts will ultimately classify AI face recognition when it becomes attached to lethal devices. Tripwires attached to a claymore fall under boobytrapping laws under arguments of reckless endangerment. I've heard it reasoned as there's no mind behind the assault and so it's reckless even if it harms someone breaking and entering. Facial recognition gets closer to an intelligence behind the weapon, but a less than human intelligence (less than canine?). At what point does your "tripwire" have enough intelligence to be legitimate under castle doctrine?

dclowd9901 5y ago

Man, I have such an opposite reaction. I know I could develop something like this if I tried but the thought of building something that would be used to kill someone, even a “bad” someone honestly makes me ill.

Aeolun 5y ago
It does not strike me as a particularly honorable way to kill someone.
- Intermernet 5y ago
  Killing someone isn't particularly honorable.

Aeolun 5y ago

I don’t know. It didn’t look cool to me at all. I’d classify it as fairly boring. It also kind of has to explode itself to do it’s job, which feels like a waste to me. So many things you can do with a drone that are immediately useless if it blows itself up.

danparsonson 5y ago

> We can also recognize that in the wrong hands, it’s an evil device. But so is a gun. I'm not sure what your point is here? The 'but' implies that we all now agree that guns are basically OK which is not universally true, and I would say increasingly the opposite. Also your conception of 'the wrong hands' and other peoples' are not necessarily the same - one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and so on. > But it’s not inconceivable that in the future, you might be able to deploy a sentry quadcopter designed to chase down (not destroy) someone who just attacked you. I was shocked that there was a drive-by shooting in my neighborhood a few months ago. Would’ve totally sic’d a drone on them the moment I heard the gunshots. I think this is exactly what scares people - there are people who would sic killer drones on people Judge Dredd style, out of a misguided sense of moral duty; I heard about a recent case of someone using the 'stand your ground' laws to justify (and be celebrated for!) going to a neighbour's house during a robbery and shooting the thieves in the back, killing them both. Not to mention that in a future where these things are available, that drive-by would've instead been a fly-by killing and you might never know who did it.

sillysaurusx 5y ago
You know, your comment got to me, but probably not in the way you hoped. You talk about these people like their lives are very important, and that it's both worthy and honorable to protect them. In reality, this is what it's like: https://twitter.com/theshawwn/status/1301407648420593664 https://twitter.com/theshawwn/status/1301407648420593664 It was scary as hell to have a drive-by happen. The cops couldn't do anything. They were long gone by the time the police came. And then they came back and shot up the same place again a few hours later. If I had a drone that could track them, they may have been brought to justice. I don't see this tech the same way you do. I see it as a stepping stone towards a world where people can protect themselves and their loved ones, as they do with guns. I think we'll just need to agree to disagree. I have a lot of things I could say, but I just don't get how people can calmly live in a country that was earned through bloodshed, while decrying those who were willing to lay down their lives for you. This is a military device. It's designed to kill people, because this is one of life's unfortunate necessities. I think the people here who are saying that there's nothing honorable about killing someone should teleport themselves back to Midway in 1942 and tell your great-grandparents that, face to face.

cblconfederate 5y ago

That is not valid. Lots of people like guns because they represent self-defense and protection of their property. Much fewer people like or own hand grenades or bombs, because they have a different purpose. This falls under the latter category. Just because they are all exploding device doesn't put them all in one bag.

sillysaurusx 5y ago
Lots of people like guns because they win wars, too. All else being equal, I'd prefer to be on the side with the self-guided bombs. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27349361 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27349361
- cblconfederate 5y ago
  The more humans are detached from defense capability, the worse it will get for non-authoritarian countries, because drone armies need only money and not legitimacy of the state
  - sillysaurusx 5y ago
    Unfortunately, you’re right. And it seems almost inevitable. I don’t like it either, for what it’s worth.

dragonsky 5y ago

I'm guessing that you have never been on the receiving end of an explosive device. This scares the shit out of me. Call me naive but the idea that somebody on the other side of the planet can set me as a target in a device that they just set and release is completely inhuman. If you want me dead, then do me the curtesy of at least putting your own arse on the line to achieve it. The potential for this type of device to be cobbled together is well within the capability of pretty much any reasonably funded electronics hobbyist, and I think one of the reasons that we haven't seen it more frequently is that hitherto it's not been morally acceptable. If this type of weapon becomes mainstream in government arsenals then you can kiss that goodbye.