4 ms·

The amount of shooting is influenced by circumstances. That is to say, if one side doesn't have to risk people dying, then they may be more willing to start a w

The amount of shooting is influenced by circumstances. That is to say, if one side doesn't have to risk people dying, then they may be more willing to start a war. For a given amount of shooting, the number of civilian casualties is not necessarily constant. It's possible that AI may be more prone to targeting civilians or makes it easier to get away politically with killing civilians. Not all shooting is equally effective. It's possible that AI weapons may give some faction the ability to crush anyone who opposes them.

neom 3y ago
I feel like this would just trigger a nuclear reaction by the people who had the less precision (AI) weapons.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> if one side doesn't have to risk people dying, then they may be more willing to start a war We already have this with ranged weaponry and autocrats indifferent to the liquidation of fresh troops. > the number of civilian casualties is not necessarily constant Civilians aren’t dogfighting. I’m with you for ground-based robots, or anti-personnel drones.
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 3y ago
  What about AI bombers, which is just a step away from AI fighters (and is probably significantly easier to implement)? Civilians could absolutely be on the receiving end there.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > What about AI bombers, which is just a step away from AI fighters For a non-peer adversary, our bombers are already invincible. For peer adversaries, the threat model is similar to missiles.
  - JackFr 3y ago
    Wouldn’t AI bombers simply be better cruise missiles?
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > Wouldn’t AI bombers simply be better cruise missiles? Technically no, since a bomber isn’t intended to be expendable. But functionally yes.
  - RecycledEle 3y ago
    > What about AI bombers, which is just a step away from AI fighters (and is probably significantly easier to implement)? AI bombers are not cruise missiles. They must avoid or deal with radars, flak, SAMs, and fighters. The life of a 21st century bomber is closer to playing several games of chess at once than it is to playing at bein a cruise missile.

neom 3y ago

I feel like this would just trigger a nuclear reaction by the people who had the less precision (AI) weapons.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> if one side doesn't have to risk people dying, then they may be more willing to start a war We already have this with ranged weaponry and autocrats indifferent to the liquidation of fresh troops. > the number of civilian casualties is not necessarily constant Civilians aren’t dogfighting. I’m with you for ground-based robots, or anti-personnel drones.

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 3y ago
What about AI bombers, which is just a step away from AI fighters (and is probably significantly easier to implement)? Civilians could absolutely be on the receiving end there.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > What about AI bombers, which is just a step away from AI fighters For a non-peer adversary, our bombers are already invincible. For peer adversaries, the threat model is similar to missiles.
- JackFr 3y ago
  Wouldn’t AI bombers simply be better cruise missiles?
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Wouldn’t AI bombers simply be better cruise missiles? Technically no, since a bomber isn’t intended to be expendable. But functionally yes.
- RecycledEle 3y ago
  > What about AI bombers, which is just a step away from AI fighters (and is probably significantly easier to implement)? AI bombers are not cruise missiles. They must avoid or deal with radars, flak, SAMs, and fighters. The life of a 21st century bomber is closer to playing several games of chess at once than it is to playing at bein a cruise missile.