4 ms·

Wow literally the only thing people seem to be putting up as an argument for working on this is "someone else will do it otherwise." I mean, yes this tech like

Wow literally the only thing people seem to be putting up as an argument for working on this is "someone else will do it otherwise." I mean, yes this tech like most others is dual use. But let's for the sake of argument assume that we know this tech will mostly be used for military purposes. Yes, others might still develop this. But in the meantime "we" (whoever this is, reminder: HN users aren't just from the US) get to miss out on other things we could have invested millions/billions into. That infrastructure project? Gone. That research into new/better energy storage? Gone. That quirky project about preserving natural habitats in the third world? Gone. By the way, that one might have actually contributed something to a lasting peace in the region. But hey it doesn't matter because we'll win any armed conflict with our drones. That might sound bitter and/or idealistic, but ultimately if we accept that the funding of whole branches of research depends on how much benefit it provides to the military, then ultimately we can say all day long how we value nature and human rights and all these things, but we're really just dressing up a really fancy warrior armor with some Greenpeace badges.

planetsprite 4y ago
this however saves lives in the long term. MAD becomes predictable when you have AI v2 vs AI v4. The countries resolve peacefully before the battle even starts and exchange resources. The computers can ascertain losses before reality proves it.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  That is dangerously bad thinking. MAD is a pipe dream, and the world is still much closer to annihilation today than it was before nuclear weapons were invented. There have been far too many close calls to count. Secondly, no country will back down on the calculations of some unproven AI. And those calculations could only be proven in blood.
quantumduck 4y ago
A couple of points: 1. We doesn't have to be another country/military. It could just be another research lab in US, China, or anywhere else in the world. Some people just like pushing tech to the limits, they seek the next hardest problem. The hardest problem post robust drone controls/motion planning era (e.g. drones like DJI) is to make them pure vision based. 2. Millions/Billions? Lol what are you even talking about. It takes about 100k to fund a graduate student for one year. I wouldn't be surprised if this entire research work was less than 1 million, maybe even 500k.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- black_puppydog 4y ago
  1. Believe me I know the appeal of a hard technical problem. PhD in Vision here. :) 2. Military drone tech as such? Yes, billion-dollar industry.
martindbp 4y ago
> That infrastructure project? Gone. And do you know what would be gone right now if Russia managed to build killer drones first, or HIMARS? That's a rhetorical question.
echelon 4y ago
If we don't built war machines at parity, we become Ukraine. Toothless. Ripe for bullying at best, hostile takeover at worst. Everything in nature evolves to consume the energy of other systems. Our unnatural Kumbaya/Disney society just plasters over that fact. Despite the bubble we live in, at the most fundamental level, we're evolved to consume. Nature is metal. Look at orcas playing with food to teach hunting. Hornets laying larva in live prey. Lions eating out distant relatives alive.
- the_af 4y ago
  > If we don't built war machines at parity, we become Ukraine. Toothless. Ripe for bullying at best, hostile takeover at worst. That's only one part of the equation. It could be that the perpetual arms race also leads to situations like Ukraine's now, or many others in the recent past. It's a way of thinking everything is a nail, since you are holding a hammer. > Nature is metal. Look at orcas playing with food to teach hunting. Hornets laying larva in live prey. Lions eating out distant relatives alive. Nature may be metal, but we aim to be better. After all, when a male lion takes over a pride, he often kills the cubs sired by the previous male; do we want that in human society? The good old "is-ought" [1] problem of philosophy applies here. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem
loudmax 4y ago
These things aren't mutually exclusive. It isn't the case that money saved on weapons research would necessarily be spent on something positive, like cancer or green energy research. I do value nature and human rights, and sometimes that means preparing to fight those who don't value nature or human rights.
- black_puppydog 4y ago
  But in terms of budget, whatever your budget is, as long as its finite it will always be a zero sum game between "mostly civil" and "mostly military" applications, fuzzy as that line is of course.
seydor 4y ago
> get to miss out on other things we could have invested millions/billions into. Things like the internet, space flight, nuclear power etc? Unfortunately, defense spending is so successful and brings high rewards exactly because there is a strong motivator behind it. I am very very very doubtful the same amount of money would have high return of investment if it was instead given to cookie-cutter science grants.

planetsprite 4y ago

this however saves lives in the long term. MAD becomes predictable when you have AI v2 vs AI v4. The countries resolve peacefully before the battle even starts and exchange resources. The computers can ascertain losses before reality proves it.

tsimionescu 4y ago
That is dangerously bad thinking. MAD is a pipe dream, and the world is still much closer to annihilation today than it was before nuclear weapons were invented. There have been far too many close calls to count. Secondly, no country will back down on the calculations of some unproven AI. And those calculations could only be proven in blood.

quantumduck 4y ago

A couple of points: 1. We doesn't have to be another country/military. It could just be another research lab in US, China, or anywhere else in the world. Some people just like pushing tech to the limits, they seek the next hardest problem. The hardest problem post robust drone controls/motion planning era (e.g. drones like DJI) is to make them pure vision based. 2. Millions/Billions? Lol what are you even talking about. It takes about 100k to fund a graduate student for one year. I wouldn't be surprised if this entire research work was less than 1 million, maybe even 500k.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
black_puppydog 4y ago
1. Believe me I know the appeal of a hard technical problem. PhD in Vision here. :) 2. Military drone tech as such? Yes, billion-dollar industry.

martindbp 4y ago

> That infrastructure project? Gone. And do you know what would be gone right now if Russia managed to build killer drones first, or HIMARS? That's a rhetorical question.

echelon 4y ago

If we don't built war machines at parity, we become Ukraine. Toothless. Ripe for bullying at best, hostile takeover at worst. Everything in nature evolves to consume the energy of other systems. Our unnatural Kumbaya/Disney society just plasters over that fact. Despite the bubble we live in, at the most fundamental level, we're evolved to consume. Nature is metal. Look at orcas playing with food to teach hunting. Hornets laying larva in live prey. Lions eating out distant relatives alive.

the_af 4y ago
> If we don't built war machines at parity, we become Ukraine. Toothless. Ripe for bullying at best, hostile takeover at worst. That's only one part of the equation. It could be that the perpetual arms race also leads to situations like Ukraine's now, or many others in the recent past. It's a way of thinking everything is a nail, since you are holding a hammer. > Nature is metal. Look at orcas playing with food to teach hunting. Hornets laying larva in live prey. Lions eating out distant relatives alive. Nature may be metal, but we aim to be better. After all, when a male lion takes over a pride, he often kills the cubs sired by the previous male; do we want that in human society? The good old "is-ought" [1] problem of philosophy applies here. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

loudmax 4y ago

These things aren't mutually exclusive. It isn't the case that money saved on weapons research would necessarily be spent on something positive, like cancer or green energy research. I do value nature and human rights, and sometimes that means preparing to fight those who don't value nature or human rights.

black_puppydog 4y ago
But in terms of budget, whatever your budget is, as long as its finite it will always be a zero sum game between "mostly civil" and "mostly military" applications, fuzzy as that line is of course.

seydor 4y ago

> get to miss out on other things we could have invested millions/billions into. Things like the internet, space flight, nuclear power etc? Unfortunately, defense spending is so successful and brings high rewards exactly because there is a strong motivator behind it. I am very very very doubtful the same amount of money would have high return of investment if it was instead given to cookie-cutter science grants.