4 ms·

That sounds like proper training. In life-and-death situations where the luxury of at least some time is available, why would anyone trust the machine without f

That sounds like proper training. In life-and-death situations where the luxury of at least some time is available, why would anyone trust the machine without first manually evaluating the evidence. If our early warning system for a nuclear attack from Russia gave us a warning, while it would be prudent to automate some defensive measures like scrambling fighters and alerting our forces, I doubt we would allow the defense system to have the authority to retaliate on its own. It would need a human (several, actually) to verify the information to the best of their ability and make the judgement calls necessary to order any retaliation. Given that this isn't a life-or-death situation, I think we can afford to go with the machine's results until we see more evidence either supporting or rejecting the Greek default. BTW, that sounds like an incredibly cool job, although I imagine it was probably more staying up all night with nothing going on. Still cool though.

niels_olson 15y ago
the issue of job protectionism comes up because there's some pretty decent evidence that unmanned drones and missiles are better for certain jobs on the offensive side, though we may come to that conclusion because it's not our people dying in the blast (usually).
- dkokelley 15y ago
  True, but the 'unmanned' drones and missiles usually still have a man remotely piloting or pulling the trigger. I doubt a drone will ever be given permission to select and fire on targets.
- antihero 15y ago
  I'm sure if we disregard ethics, and loss of human life can be taken as an error calculation in a piece of software, then computer systems can be far more efficient. However, I hope we're not at that point. I mean if we were truly rational we could see that collateral damage could be a factor in whether a campaign was successful, taking into account the attitude of the conquered nation and how it may or may not affect insurgency or resistance. Though I don't want to believe that's the reason we try to preserve life.

niels_olson 15y ago

the issue of job protectionism comes up because there's some pretty decent evidence that unmanned drones and missiles are better for certain jobs on the offensive side, though we may come to that conclusion because it's not our people dying in the blast (usually).

dkokelley 15y ago
True, but the 'unmanned' drones and missiles usually still have a man remotely piloting or pulling the trigger. I doubt a drone will ever be given permission to select and fire on targets.
antihero 15y ago
I'm sure if we disregard ethics, and loss of human life can be taken as an error calculation in a piece of software, then computer systems can be far more efficient. However, I hope we're not at that point. I mean if we were truly rational we could see that collateral damage could be a factor in whether a campaign was successful, taking into account the attitude of the conquered nation and how it may or may not affect insurgency or resistance. Though I don't want to believe that's the reason we try to preserve life.