5 ms·

This is thinly veiled posturing. The idea is as ludicrous as an "ethics guide" for nuclear warhead guidance systems. The entire concept of autonomous fighting m

This is thinly veiled posturing. The idea is as ludicrous as an "ethics guide" for nuclear warhead guidance systems. The entire concept of autonomous fighting machines is inherently totalitarian: http://vinay.howtolivewiki.com/blog/global/the-second-amendment-in-iraq-combat-robotics-and-the-future-of-human-liberty-820 http://vinay.howtolivewiki.com/blog/global/the-second-amendm... "So the response ... from the Pentagon has been to fund the development of weapons systems which are capable of defeating the Iraqi population, with their rifles and improvised bombs, so that the next population that chooses to resist the US military can be swiftly and effectively defeated. What this effort will do, if it is successful, is defang not just the population of Iraq, but all populations, overthrowing the protective effect individual firearms ownership, destroying the intent and effectiveness of the Second Amendment, and unbalancing the Constitution permanently through evolving technology which end-runs around the original intent of the Framers. It is the one blow that the Constitution cannot recover from: bad laws can be unmade, and unjust men can be hanged, but once the technologies to upend the Constitution exist, it is indeed finished."

cousin_it 17y ago
Unless you give individual citizens the ability to create similar machines.
- ivankirigin 17y ago
  Automated sentry guns are largely banned as "booby traps". Soon, toy UAV kits which anyone can build might be banned.
- asciilifeform 17y ago
  Even in the absence of legal obstacles, how many autonomous tanks could you personally afford? How many communication satellites to direct them from? How many repair technicians working around the clock? Etc.
ivankirigin 17y ago
I'd say autonomous firing is inherently violent, but not totalitarian. A cruise missile is inherently violent, but doesn't necessary mean the group using it is good or bad. I can definitely imagine a scenario of dropping a robot in place of a cruise missile that would kill or incapacitate everyone automatically. It wouldn't destroy the area like a bomb, so it is less violent than current tools.
- asciilifeform 17y ago
  Please read the linked article. It makes a very persuasive argument that the very ability to deploy a mechanical army tips a government towards totalitarianism, as it takes human beings out of the decree-enforcement loop.
  - ivankirigin 17y ago
    As a libertarian, I'm definitely sensitive to the issue, and look forward to reading the article. I think the threat of oppressive government is much higher from democracy than from any robots. If I were starting a new country, it wouldn't be a democracy, but a extremely small government that by built in limits couldn't be oppressive. In such a case, I'd prefer to have automated police and military forces, to have fewer human points of failure. I consider, for example, the Roosevelt court packing debacle to be a significant human point of failure in our democracy.
    - asciilifeform 17y ago
      > extremely small government that by built in limits couldn't be oppressive Unless the limits are enforced by benevolent, technologically advanced aliens, you're screwed. History offers massive proof if you're willing to look. As for robots: at least FDR had to convince actual humans - the kind with their own interests, and some measure of built-in resistance - of something in order to pack the court. As opposed to, say, personally programming a 100,000-strong robot army to fire on his command.
      - 17y ago

cousin_it 17y ago

Unless you give individual citizens the ability to create similar machines.

ivankirigin 17y ago
Automated sentry guns are largely banned as "booby traps". Soon, toy UAV kits which anyone can build might be banned.
asciilifeform 17y ago
Even in the absence of legal obstacles, how many autonomous tanks could you personally afford? How many communication satellites to direct them from? How many repair technicians working around the clock? Etc.

ivankirigin 17y ago

I'd say autonomous firing is inherently violent, but not totalitarian. A cruise missile is inherently violent, but doesn't necessary mean the group using it is good or bad. I can definitely imagine a scenario of dropping a robot in place of a cruise missile that would kill or incapacitate everyone automatically. It wouldn't destroy the area like a bomb, so it is less violent than current tools.

asciilifeform 17y ago
Please read the linked article. It makes a very persuasive argument that the very ability to deploy a mechanical army tips a government towards totalitarianism, as it takes human beings out of the decree-enforcement loop.
- ivankirigin 17y ago
  As a libertarian, I'm definitely sensitive to the issue, and look forward to reading the article. I think the threat of oppressive government is much higher from democracy than from any robots. If I were starting a new country, it wouldn't be a democracy, but a extremely small government that by built in limits couldn't be oppressive. In such a case, I'd prefer to have automated police and military forces, to have fewer human points of failure. I consider, for example, the Roosevelt court packing debacle to be a significant human point of failure in our democracy.
  - asciilifeform 17y ago
    > extremely small government that by built in limits couldn't be oppressive Unless the limits are enforced by benevolent, technologically advanced aliens, you're screwed. History offers massive proof if you're willing to look. As for robots: at least FDR had to convince actual humans - the kind with their own interests, and some measure of built-in resistance - of something in order to pack the court. As opposed to, say, personally programming a 100,000-strong robot army to fire on his command.
    - 17y ago