3 ms·
After thinking a lot about your comment, there seems to be some contradictions in it. In this case, you feel that war is a grim necessity, and also admit that
by sillysaurusx 5y ago
After thinking a lot about your comment, there seems to be some contradictions in it.
In this case, you feel that war is a grim necessity, and also admit that this is a military device. If your country is in a war, wouldn’t you want to be on the winning side? Culture often doesn’t survive losing a war.
If so, then I don’t understand why people are against development of this tech. If you’re on the battlefield, you bet that you’d want a way to take out the people shooting at you from the hill on the other side. Usually that means calling in air support. Here, your air support can be almost pocket sized.
It’s pretty much as simple as that, and I think the crux of the disagreements. People seem worried that this tech will get out of hand. I am too. But it also feels inevitable.
Would you want to fight a war without guns? Because it sounds similar to an argument against developing guns.
- unionpivo 5y agoBecause you are only looking from your perspective. What happens when people who did the driveby get the technology (if you can buy the drones so can the bad guys). What happens when your autonomous drone decides to shoots neigburs kid for playing hid and seek, in a fashion that drone algorithms find objectionable. And suppose your drone goes after them, finds them, then what ? You do realize that after, the drive by is done and they "flee" the scene, you can't just go after them and shoot them as a civilian? You can defend your property (someplaces ) but that does not include chasing after them. Is the drone smart enough not to shoot when there are other people behind it's targets ? what if it's Halloween ? Supose those drones get sold, and given current IOT security standards, someone hacks them ?
- danparsonson 5y agoThank you, this is a good summary of my views.