3 ms·

I'd argue against virtually all the points you make BUT you actually miss the main point of this: this is about making autonomous decisions in the field beyond

I'd argue against virtually all the points you make BUT you actually miss the main point of this: this is about making autonomous decisions in the field beyond just local navigation and such. Your arguments hold for non-autonomous drones and autonomous ones to pretty much equal degree. But you don't make any point about why humans shouldn't remain in control of combat decisions.

dirtyid 5y ago
Consider US vs PRC scenario - naval battle over ocean where theatre area is cordoned off as no-go zone for commercial traffic. UAVs massively out maneuver human pilots. Massive electronic warfare disrupts data links and force remote human out of loop. So UAV falls back to onboard sensors to operate autonomously to finish mission to sink enemy ships. Well preferrable enemy ships that match onboard profiles, but might as well as sink all vessels within a no-go region. No real need for human decision making if goal is already well defined and the environment permissible. Vast percentage of the earth (bodies of water, minimally occupied lands) can easily be turned into no-mans land for UAVs to battle with little risk for collateral damage. It's the same permissible environment for tactical nukes, which is still part of doctrine / planning for anyone that has them.
- black_puppydog 5y ago
  Right. Gotta realize we humans have to give these UAVs the space they rightfully claim on this planet... /s
tempnow987 5y ago
Because in war humans already move themselves out of those decisions. Landmines and huge minefields. This is death with no human involvement. If a commander draws a box on a map and says deny the ability of the enemy to cross this box on our flank, does he care particularly whether it's mines (that are a pain to deal with after things quiet down) or if it's killer autonomous drones? Plant security? Border patrol? Think of a rich guy with a private island. Security is wildly expensive, but they are paranoid (check out the security some of the Russian oligarchs run - it's pretty much a mini mercenary force). Would they deploy some automated AI that kills anyone unauthorized (after some warnings?) My guess is yes.

dirtyid 5y ago

Consider US vs PRC scenario - naval battle over ocean where theatre area is cordoned off as no-go zone for commercial traffic. UAVs massively out maneuver human pilots. Massive electronic warfare disrupts data links and force remote human out of loop. So UAV falls back to onboard sensors to operate autonomously to finish mission to sink enemy ships. Well preferrable enemy ships that match onboard profiles, but might as well as sink all vessels within a no-go region. No real need for human decision making if goal is already well defined and the environment permissible. Vast percentage of the earth (bodies of water, minimally occupied lands) can easily be turned into no-mans land for UAVs to battle with little risk for collateral damage. It's the same permissible environment for tactical nukes, which is still part of doctrine / planning for anyone that has them.

black_puppydog 5y ago
Right. Gotta realize we humans have to give these UAVs the space they rightfully claim on this planet... /s

tempnow987 5y ago

Because in war humans already move themselves out of those decisions. Landmines and huge minefields. This is death with no human involvement. If a commander draws a box on a map and says deny the ability of the enemy to cross this box on our flank, does he care particularly whether it's mines (that are a pain to deal with after things quiet down) or if it's killer autonomous drones? Plant security? Border patrol? Think of a rich guy with a private island. Security is wildly expensive, but they are paranoid (check out the security some of the Russian oligarchs run - it's pretty much a mini mercenary force). Would they deploy some automated AI that kills anyone unauthorized (after some warnings?) My guess is yes.