3 ms·

Also, as someone from a country that has been attacked and dragged into war, I would prefer machines fighting (and being destroyed autonomously) rather than my

Also, as someone from a country that has been attacked and dragged into war, I would prefer machines fighting (and being destroyed autonomously) rather than my people dying, nor people from any nation that came to help. That's as Anthropic as it gets if your nerve expands a little bit further than your HOA.

preisschild 7mo ago
The more likely scenario will be "your people" dying in a war against machines that don't tend to disregard illegal orders.
gambiting 7mo ago
>> I would prefer machines fighting (and being destroyed autonomously) rather than my people dying What makes you think in any war the machines would stop at just fighting other machines?
Quarrelsome 7mo ago
> would prefer machines fighting (and being destroyed autonomously) rather than my people dying But the reality is more like the surprise of a bunch of submersible kill bots terrorising a coastal city and murdering people. Even in bot-first combat, at some point one side of bots wins either totally, allowing it to kill people indiscriminately or partially, which forces the team on the back foot to pivot to guerilla warfare and terror attacks, using robots.
- sithamet 7mo ago
  Humans actually do exactly the same, google Mariupol or Bucha or what drones (human-piloted) are doing in Cherson, so the city is all covered by fishnet. Machines delay the moment people start dying; true not only for military applications btw.
  - Quarrelsome 7mo ago
    sure but it remains somewhat ethical to want them piloted, so children growing up in a post war landscape don't accidentally disturb something considerably more terrifying than a land mine.
kingkawn 7mo ago
What about machines slaughtering the population without pause?
mrtksn 7mo ago
What do you think it will happen once the machines fight off? Do you think that the losing side will be like "oh no our machines lost, then better we give our things to the winning machines"? After your machines are destroyed you will be fighting machines or machines will extract and constantly optimize you. They will either exterminate you or make you busy enough not to have time for resistance. If you have something of value they will take it away. The best case scenario is to make you join the owners of the machines and keep you busy so that you don't have time to raise concerns about your 2nd class citizenship.
- sithamet 7mo ago
  Humans actually do exactly the same, google Mariupol or Bucha. Machines delay the moment people start dying. Good attempt in reasoning though.
  - mrtksn 7mo ago
    I don't disagree, my point is that machines won't change a thing about war just optimize it.
    - timtas 7mo ago
      Some might say that optimization (how quickly and efficiently people are killed) is THE thing about war. I mean, aren't nukes the ultimate optimization?
timtas 7mo ago
Wait, you think these autonomous killer robots will only fight each other? Are you kidding?

preisschild 7mo ago

The more likely scenario will be "your people" dying in a war against machines that don't tend to disregard illegal orders.

gambiting 7mo ago

>> I would prefer machines fighting (and being destroyed autonomously) rather than my people dying What makes you think in any war the machines would stop at just fighting other machines?

Quarrelsome 7mo ago

> would prefer machines fighting (and being destroyed autonomously) rather than my people dying But the reality is more like the surprise of a bunch of submersible kill bots terrorising a coastal city and murdering people. Even in bot-first combat, at some point one side of bots wins either totally, allowing it to kill people indiscriminately or partially, which forces the team on the back foot to pivot to guerilla warfare and terror attacks, using robots.

sithamet 7mo ago
Humans actually do exactly the same, google Mariupol or Bucha or what drones (human-piloted) are doing in Cherson, so the city is all covered by fishnet. Machines delay the moment people start dying; true not only for military applications btw.
- Quarrelsome 7mo ago
  sure but it remains somewhat ethical to want them piloted, so children growing up in a post war landscape don't accidentally disturb something considerably more terrifying than a land mine.

kingkawn 7mo ago

What about machines slaughtering the population without pause?

mrtksn 7mo ago

What do you think it will happen once the machines fight off? Do you think that the losing side will be like "oh no our machines lost, then better we give our things to the winning machines"? After your machines are destroyed you will be fighting machines or machines will extract and constantly optimize you. They will either exterminate you or make you busy enough not to have time for resistance. If you have something of value they will take it away. The best case scenario is to make you join the owners of the machines and keep you busy so that you don't have time to raise concerns about your 2nd class citizenship.

sithamet 7mo ago
Humans actually do exactly the same, google Mariupol or Bucha. Machines delay the moment people start dying. Good attempt in reasoning though.
- mrtksn 7mo ago
  I don't disagree, my point is that machines won't change a thing about war just optimize it.
  - timtas 7mo ago
    Some might say that optimization (how quickly and efficiently people are killed) is THE thing about war. I mean, aren't nukes the ultimate optimization?

timtas 7mo ago

Wait, you think these autonomous killer robots will only fight each other? Are you kidding?