2 ms·
My most straightforward read is that the military simply doesn't want their contractors to have a say in the war doctrine. Raytheon doesn't get to say "you can
by lich_king 7mo ago
My most straightforward read is that the military simply doesn't want their contractors to have a say in the war doctrine. Raytheon doesn't get to say "you can only bomb the countries we like, and no hitting hospitals or schools". It doesn't necessarily mean the Pentagon wants to bomb hospitals, but they also don't want to lose autonomy.
A less charitable interpretation is that the current doctrine is "China / Russia will build autonomous killbots, so we can't allow a killbot gap".
I'm frankly less concerned about "proper" military uses than I am about the tech bleeding into the sphere of domestic law enforcement, as it inevitably will.
- remarkEon 7mo ago>A less charitable interpretation is that the current doctrine is "China / Russia will build autonomous killbots, so we can't allow a killbot gap". What's the reason this is less charitable, exactly? Do we think this isn't true, or that we think it's immoral to build the Terminator even if China/Russia already have them?
- lich_king 7mo agoI don't know what you're trying to argue about here. I meant "charitable" as in "not necessarily implying the thing critics worry about". The less charitable interpretation is that the implied thing is true but is seen as a necessity. We'll leave the morality of war for another time.