3 ms·

Ukrainian AI attack drones may be killing without human oversight

7 points by YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago

bell-cot 3y ago
Reaction: Yet more "AI" hype. Land mines have been killing without human oversight for how many centuries now?
- YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago
  Mines are traps not autonomous systems. They do not have autonomous navigation capability, nor can they choose to attack, or not attack, a target.
  - bell-cot 3y ago
    Words like "autonomous" and "choice" sound cool and philosophical, and push a lot of people's emotional buttons. The article's leading "OMG, how horrible!!!" line seems to be: > While the drones are designed to target vehicles such as tanks, rather than infantry, it is almost certain that the resulting explosions are killing Russian soldiers without a direct command from a human operator... Back in the war zone, soldiers and innocents have to deal with a huge variety of threats, which can be conceptualized as having various degrees of determinism, human agency, and randomness. From the PoV of a Russian soldier who wants to live (vs. get an "A+" on his Philosophy 483 term paper) - how is that drone really different from land mines, artillery and mortar fire, suppressive small arms fire, "non-AI" rockets & missiles, booby traps, "oops!" friendly fire, etc.? Zero of those things are carefully checking his dog tags, personal morals, or "legitimate enemy combatant in a war zone" legal status.
    - YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago
      It's not a philosophical issue and I'm not a philosopher, and to be blunt, I find this kind of glib dismissal of concerns irritating because it is obviously motivated by ignorance, rather than knowledge, and perhaps a bit of sexism on top. For the record, I am a post-doc researcher in a project whose goal is to develop autonomous capabilities for a search-and-rescue craft, I'm the person who is primarily responsible for the development of the autonomous capabilities, and I can assure you that there is no philosophy involved in the issues I have to deal with in my day-to-day job, whatsoever. I was also unaware that what I do is cool, but thanks for letting me know. I don't understand what the rest of your comment is saying. We have different kinds of systems that kill indiscriminately- so, what? We should be making more because that's OK then?
- beardyw 3y ago
  Exactly my reaction. But something which seeks you out feels different somehow. I suppose it feels humanised.
  - bell-cot 3y ago
    Yep - "feels humanized". As could be said of a spring-gun (outlawed in England ~2 centuries ago), or a grenade-and-tripwire booby-trap laid along a trail regularly patrolled by enemy soldiers, or a WWII acoustic homing torpedo, or ...
- kobalsky 3y ago
  there AI hype and there’s this type virulent rejection that doesn’t let you see that if a land mine is bad, one with wheels or wings actively seeking targets is exponentially worse
justinclift 3y ago
https://archive.li/HSqft https://archive.li/HSqft

bell-cot 3y ago

Reaction: Yet more "AI" hype. Land mines have been killing without human oversight for how many centuries now?

YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago
Mines are traps not autonomous systems. They do not have autonomous navigation capability, nor can they choose to attack, or not attack, a target.
- bell-cot 3y ago
  Words like "autonomous" and "choice" sound cool and philosophical, and push a lot of people's emotional buttons. The article's leading "OMG, how horrible!!!" line seems to be: > While the drones are designed to target vehicles such as tanks, rather than infantry, it is almost certain that the resulting explosions are killing Russian soldiers without a direct command from a human operator... Back in the war zone, soldiers and innocents have to deal with a huge variety of threats, which can be conceptualized as having various degrees of determinism, human agency, and randomness. From the PoV of a Russian soldier who wants to live (vs. get an "A+" on his Philosophy 483 term paper) - how is that drone really different from land mines, artillery and mortar fire, suppressive small arms fire, "non-AI" rockets & missiles, booby traps, "oops!" friendly fire, etc.? Zero of those things are carefully checking his dog tags, personal morals, or "legitimate enemy combatant in a war zone" legal status.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago
    It's not a philosophical issue and I'm not a philosopher, and to be blunt, I find this kind of glib dismissal of concerns irritating because it is obviously motivated by ignorance, rather than knowledge, and perhaps a bit of sexism on top. For the record, I am a post-doc researcher in a project whose goal is to develop autonomous capabilities for a search-and-rescue craft, I'm the person who is primarily responsible for the development of the autonomous capabilities, and I can assure you that there is no philosophy involved in the issues I have to deal with in my day-to-day job, whatsoever. I was also unaware that what I do is cool, but thanks for letting me know. I don't understand what the rest of your comment is saying. We have different kinds of systems that kill indiscriminately- so, what? We should be making more because that's OK then?
beardyw 3y ago
Exactly my reaction. But something which seeks you out feels different somehow. I suppose it feels humanised.
- bell-cot 3y ago
  Yep - "feels humanized". As could be said of a spring-gun (outlawed in England ~2 centuries ago), or a grenade-and-tripwire booby-trap laid along a trail regularly patrolled by enemy soldiers, or a WWII acoustic homing torpedo, or ...
kobalsky 3y ago
there AI hype and there’s this type virulent rejection that doesn’t let you see that if a land mine is bad, one with wheels or wings actively seeking targets is exponentially worse

justinclift 3y ago

https://archive.li/HSqft https://archive.li/HSqft