4 ms·

>> exerting over the system when the system has been fine-tuned to make it easier for the human to do less, and for the operator to accept the machine’s judgmen

>> exerting over the system when the system has been fine-tuned to make it easier for the human to do less, and for the operator to accept the machine’s judgment. >Is just incredibly bad faith nonsense. Or extremely ignorant. It's hard to tell which. When you talk to the military you have to remember that many levels of military are regarded as drones that go through motions and that much of what goes on is assumed to be defined without critical thinking. When things deviate, they ask for directions from higher levels where critical thinking occurs. This is different than assumptions you typically make with end users, you assume your system is being used by people who actively think, question, and have varied needs. In this light that argument makes a bit more sense, these are just processes that you're refining to make the process more fluid--"the human is a necessary evil because we lack the technology to do these and need meatsuits to execute" sort of thought process. Point there and shoot here, etc. When you think of much military action in this context, that people follow orders, execute predefined processes and don't think, this argument makes more sense... if I have biological robots why not replace them with faster non-biologicial robots? I completely disagree with this ideology but it's pretty deeply seated in the military from what I understand. The issue is people arguing for HITL (human-in-the-loop) don't want drones who don't think and they assume they're able to intervene and say "no" when something absurd, unethical, or ridiculous is thrown in the mix. They want them to consider when someone says, fire a missile here, what are the implications of that to some degree. That if on their radar they see a playground full of children they might reject that order or improper information, give feedback and even ask for more confirmation. I find the majority of the arguments presented in this article pretty weak, but don't feel like dissecting them all. The first does look at life through a Tayloristic perspective of efficiency above all else which I think is a fundamental problem humanity is facing everywhere, not just the military: the questioning of Taylorism and utility theory perspectives that dominant the world today, instead seeing a need for balancing the needs of humanity and considering things humanistically in a world increasingly ruled by the former.

tialaramex 4y ago
In the past few days HN linked something about changes in military organisation from the era when fixed formation set pieces were usual, and it emphasises that today we don't in fact really do what you've described. The soldiers aren't "drones" in this sense, they're responsible for some pretty sophisticated decision making which requires personal discretion. A British Army soldier, literate but probably with nothing beyond high school education, is expected to learn tactics needed to achieve strategic goals without babysitting. "Take that building" is a goal, working as a group, advancing under cover and flanking the enemy is tactics. Modern infantry work mostly in small units, a handful of people with a shared purpose, they have an NCO leader to make decisions but they are individually expected to understand the tactics. The officer commanding dozens or hundreds of troops remotely can't babysit them all even if they both wanted to and had the information to attempt it which they don't. The preference to not use humans is sentiment. Drones, robot guns, and so on don't leave grieving friends and relatives, they're just machines, and will be replaced. Sentiment is a massive political problem, the American people will pay for a $100Bn/ year war without flinching, hey it's full employment at the weapons factory - but when the planes full of coffins come home that's a voters' kid in each box.
closewith 4y ago
> When you talk to the military you have to remember that many levels of military are regarded as drones that go through motions and that much of what goes on is assumed to be defined without critical thinking. When things deviate, they ask for directions from higher levels where critical thinking occurs. This is the exact opposite to modern Western military doctrine. All levels are expected to exercise critical thinking when facing questions rife with nuance and subtlety. These range from how to employ complex weapons systems in tactical environments to abstract legal questions such as "Is this order lawful?". At all levels, from officer to NCO to enlisted, troops are expected to employ a high level of flexibility and creativity in carrying out their orders, to be able to step up to cover the responsibilities of higher ranks if necessary, and to hold a high level of situational awareness. Modern professional soldiers are not drones. Frankly, I'd go so far as to say that ignorance displayed in your comment here should all but disqualify you from holding an opinion on military matters.

tialaramex 4y ago

In the past few days HN linked something about changes in military organisation from the era when fixed formation set pieces were usual, and it emphasises that today we don't in fact really do what you've described. The soldiers aren't "drones" in this sense, they're responsible for some pretty sophisticated decision making which requires personal discretion. A British Army soldier, literate but probably with nothing beyond high school education, is expected to learn tactics needed to achieve strategic goals without babysitting. "Take that building" is a goal, working as a group, advancing under cover and flanking the enemy is tactics. Modern infantry work mostly in small units, a handful of people with a shared purpose, they have an NCO leader to make decisions but they are individually expected to understand the tactics. The officer commanding dozens or hundreds of troops remotely can't babysit them all even if they both wanted to and had the information to attempt it which they don't. The preference to not use humans is sentiment. Drones, robot guns, and so on don't leave grieving friends and relatives, they're just machines, and will be replaced. Sentiment is a massive political problem, the American people will pay for a $100Bn/ year war without flinching, hey it's full employment at the weapons factory - but when the planes full of coffins come home that's a voters' kid in each box.

closewith 4y ago

> When you talk to the military you have to remember that many levels of military are regarded as drones that go through motions and that much of what goes on is assumed to be defined without critical thinking. When things deviate, they ask for directions from higher levels where critical thinking occurs. This is the exact opposite to modern Western military doctrine. All levels are expected to exercise critical thinking when facing questions rife with nuance and subtlety. These range from how to employ complex weapons systems in tactical environments to abstract legal questions such as "Is this order lawful?". At all levels, from officer to NCO to enlisted, troops are expected to employ a high level of flexibility and creativity in carrying out their orders, to be able to step up to cover the responsibilities of higher ranks if necessary, and to hold a high level of situational awareness. Modern professional soldiers are not drones. Frankly, I'd go so far as to say that ignorance displayed in your comment here should all but disqualify you from holding an opinion on military matters.