3 ms·

Perhaps you are assuming some kind of inherent humananity in the chain of command that doesn't always exist. The further away from the conflict the easier it is

by ehnto 5y ago

Perhaps you are assuming some kind of inherent humananity in the chain of command that doesn't always exist. The further away from the conflict the easier it is to make inhumane decisions that serve your own betterment. Remember that it's not just your country and leader that gets the drones. Human operated drones have long been criticized for dehumanizing conflict which allows for escalating harm and harming unnecessary targets without issue. Similarly war atrocities are somewhat limited to what you can convince your army to do. Not so with drones, they won't revolt and they won't tell the news either. Perhaps it would be nice if conflict was just drones versus drones, but that is unlikely. War doesn't happen where you all arrive to battle in a field somewhere, it will be drones flooding towns and human combatants and civilians all in the mix.

pyuser583 5y ago
I mean I literally just said I’m worried about military turning humans into machines, so I don’t know why you’d think I see the chain of command as “humanized.” However, I do believe the US military has a very strong “culture of accountability” - much more so than US police, US politicians, US civil servants, US scholars, or anything else in the US. I suppose autonomous weapons might not share that culture, but whoever is deploying them does. It’s worth pointing out that for a long time, drone strikes were the provenance of the CIA which lacks a formal chain of command. As long as the decision to deploy an autonomous weapon, and what’s its parameters are, is set by an accountable agent, I don’t see a ton of difference between the uncertainty in an autonomous weapon, and the uncertainty present in the chaos of war. See: US bombing of Chinese Embassy in Belgrade. Honestly, an autonomous weapon might be much more like to avoid non-military targets (like the Chinese consulate). If so, great! Edit. I reread your comment. Regarding atrocities, automous weapons can care about atrocities far more than non-autonomous weapons. A nuclear bomb or stick of dynamite doesn’t care who it’s blowing up. An intelligent targeting system does. A properly trained AI, with a secure audit log, could serve as a strong deterrent against violating the laws of war.

by ehnto 5y ago

pyuser583 5y ago

I mean I literally just said I’m worried about military turning humans into machines, so I don’t know why you’d think I see the chain of command as “humanized.” However, I do believe the US military has a very strong “culture of accountability” - much more so than US police, US politicians, US civil servants, US scholars, or anything else in the US. I suppose autonomous weapons might not share that culture, but whoever is deploying them does. It’s worth pointing out that for a long time, drone strikes were the provenance of the CIA which lacks a formal chain of command. As long as the decision to deploy an autonomous weapon, and what’s its parameters are, is set by an accountable agent, I don’t see a ton of difference between the uncertainty in an autonomous weapon, and the uncertainty present in the chaos of war. See: US bombing of Chinese Embassy in Belgrade. Honestly, an autonomous weapon might be much more like to avoid non-military targets (like the Chinese consulate). If so, great! Edit. I reread your comment. Regarding atrocities, automous weapons can care about atrocities far more than non-autonomous weapons. A nuclear bomb or stick of dynamite doesn’t care who it’s blowing up. An intelligent targeting system does. A properly trained AI, with a secure audit log, could serve as a strong deterrent against violating the laws of war.