4 ms·

Look at every reply here. It jumps to a conclusion that an unmanned vehicle is making decisions about who dies and thus must be bad. It overlooks the fact that

by kbos87 2y ago

Look at every reply here. It jumps to a conclusion that an unmanned vehicle is making decisions about who dies and thus must be bad. It overlooks the fact that most of us enjoy the stability and protection of militaries that are real people we ask to risk their lives to fly these planes.

harimau777 2y ago
Those two statements don't strike me as contradictory. It's entirely possible that someone could enjoy the protection of the military and feel that it is too dangerous for combat to be fought by AI. By way of analogy, most people who enjoy the protection of the military are opposed to the use of chemical or biological weapons. They recognize that how people fight is also important.
- kbos87 2y ago
  I don’t disagree with that statement, but isn’t it dissonant for there to be no discussion of how the audience here seems to ignore the topic of war when it’s fought in our names by real people, but holds ourselves to such high minded ideals when it’s fought by machines?
  - harimau777 2y ago
    Do you know if the people you are observing are more right wing or left? I don't mean that to turn this into political tribalism. I ask because the sense that I've gotten of HN is that most posters lean left and tend towards anti-war but there is a significant right leaning population that are probably left anti-war. I'm trying to map what you are seeing to what I've observed so that I can understand what you are seeing better.
  - makeitdouble 2y ago
    I'd argue most people here probably don't see current wars as waged in their names. Perhaps if they live in Ukraine, but otherwise that looks like a tough sell.
bruce511 2y ago
To be fair, machines deciding who dies is a pretty common movie and sci-fi plot. And (spoiler alert) it never ends well. But, if I may, I'd like to challenge your premise somewhat as well. Which is that militaries exist fundamentally to provide "stability and protection". To be clear, yes militaries are a necessary evil, but they are evil, not good. They exist "because the other guy has one", but then because we have one, we need to use it. With a few exceptions (ww1, ww2, kuwait) US military adventures have been the problem, not the solution. The last attack on US soil (Pearl Harbour) was close to 100 years ago. Yet the US military budget is 5 times everyone else combined. So, I'd argue, the US military does not exist to provide "stability and protection (to US citizens)." It exists as a way of projecting US policy, both as a threat, and occasionally in practice.
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 2y ago
  > The last attack on US soil (Pearl Harbour) 9/11
  - bruce511 2y ago
    Yeah, I thought that might come up :). I excluded 9/11 though because it's not a military action, wasn't rebuked with military action (at the time) and wouldn't have been prevented with military action. It is best described as a terrorist attack. The prevention of which is a security function, not a military function. The existence of a military did of course big a military response, one being an unprovoked attack on Iraq, and the other being a 20 year occupation of Afghanistan which achieved nothing.
makeitdouble 2y ago
The other comments look to me more like visceral reaction that aren't specially related to your point. I see them more afraid of military power becoming commoditized (raging a war coming down to a straight economic calculus, more so than even it is now) with very little ethical control. Having people in the cockpit pulling the trigger was a line to cross. You're focusing on the danger of sitting in the cockpit, they're focusing on the danger of having no one left actually thinking about pulling the trigger. I don't see the two as conflicting, you can have a drone with still a human making the decisions and being accountable on each of the strikes. Not having domestic people die is uncrontroversial, making the military accountable is a way bigger challenge, so I'd see putting a lot more thought on that part to be a healthy stance. In particular sense's point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40082550 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40082550 > There's an inflection point where technology accrues too much power to a ruling class, such that no amount of unrest or revolution is able reset the social order.

by kbos87 2y ago

harimau777 2y ago

Those two statements don't strike me as contradictory. It's entirely possible that someone could enjoy the protection of the military and feel that it is too dangerous for combat to be fought by AI. By way of analogy, most people who enjoy the protection of the military are opposed to the use of chemical or biological weapons. They recognize that how people fight is also important.

kbos87 2y ago
I don’t disagree with that statement, but isn’t it dissonant for there to be no discussion of how the audience here seems to ignore the topic of war when it’s fought in our names by real people, but holds ourselves to such high minded ideals when it’s fought by machines?
- harimau777 2y ago
  Do you know if the people you are observing are more right wing or left? I don't mean that to turn this into political tribalism. I ask because the sense that I've gotten of HN is that most posters lean left and tend towards anti-war but there is a significant right leaning population that are probably left anti-war. I'm trying to map what you are seeing to what I've observed so that I can understand what you are seeing better.
- makeitdouble 2y ago
  I'd argue most people here probably don't see current wars as waged in their names. Perhaps if they live in Ukraine, but otherwise that looks like a tough sell.

bruce511 2y ago

To be fair, machines deciding who dies is a pretty common movie and sci-fi plot. And (spoiler alert) it never ends well. But, if I may, I'd like to challenge your premise somewhat as well. Which is that militaries exist fundamentally to provide "stability and protection". To be clear, yes militaries are a necessary evil, but they are evil, not good. They exist "because the other guy has one", but then because we have one, we need to use it. With a few exceptions (ww1, ww2, kuwait) US military adventures have been the problem, not the solution. The last attack on US soil (Pearl Harbour) was close to 100 years ago. Yet the US military budget is 5 times everyone else combined. So, I'd argue, the US military does not exist to provide "stability and protection (to US citizens)." It exists as a way of projecting US policy, both as a threat, and occasionally in practice.

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 2y ago
> The last attack on US soil (Pearl Harbour) 9/11
- bruce511 2y ago
  Yeah, I thought that might come up :). I excluded 9/11 though because it's not a military action, wasn't rebuked with military action (at the time) and wouldn't have been prevented with military action. It is best described as a terrorist attack. The prevention of which is a security function, not a military function. The existence of a military did of course big a military response, one being an unprovoked attack on Iraq, and the other being a 20 year occupation of Afghanistan which achieved nothing.

makeitdouble 2y ago

The other comments look to me more like visceral reaction that aren't specially related to your point. I see them more afraid of military power becoming commoditized (raging a war coming down to a straight economic calculus, more so than even it is now) with very little ethical control. Having people in the cockpit pulling the trigger was a line to cross. You're focusing on the danger of sitting in the cockpit, they're focusing on the danger of having no one left actually thinking about pulling the trigger. I don't see the two as conflicting, you can have a drone with still a human making the decisions and being accountable on each of the strikes. Not having domestic people die is uncrontroversial, making the military accountable is a way bigger challenge, so I'd see putting a lot more thought on that part to be a healthy stance. In particular sense's point: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40082550 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40082550 > There's an inflection point where technology accrues too much power to a ruling class, such that no amount of unrest or revolution is able reset the social order.