4 ms·

Or, since he is not there he could be even more trigger happy.

by dmishe 13y ago

fizx 13y ago
Hopefully, we can use gamification to provide incentives not to kill civilians.
wyager 13y ago
Psychological removal is a serious concern. It could be a lot easier to kill someone when you're removed by a few layers of abstraction.
- gngeal 13y ago
  On the plus side, doesn't it also lower the psychological harm that happens to many a soldier in sustained war?
  - ef4 13y ago
    Actually the experience so far with drone pilots shows that they get PTSD at the same rate as combat pilots who were physically there. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/us/drone-pilots-found-to-get-stress-disorders-much-as-those-in-combat-do.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/us/drone-pilots-found-to-g...
    - gngeal 13y ago
      We're still in the beginning. Removing the "witnessing the carnage" part could still be accomplished one day. As I mentioned, using our brains just to simulate humans on-site controlling stuff at the battlefield may not be the best use we could come up with. Compared to what I had in mind, current drones are just glorified RC models. Thanks for the interesting link, though. This risk is always there, I guess.
- scotty79 13y ago
  I think it might be other way around. It's harder to kill if you or your friends are not in danger. And if you can see in all gory details and contemplate what effect your weapon has on the body of an enemy.
jared314 13y ago
Hasn't this already been explored with the current generation drone pilots, and previous generation aerial bomber crews.
pkroll 13y ago
But, since it's very likely to record the events on video, there's substantial motivation to do things By The Book.
gngeal 13y ago
Or, N robots could integrate and act upon commands from M operators, where M >> N. Decoupling the control logic from the pointy end could allow you to use the (fast, automatic, and expensive) pointy end at a proper speed without a reduction in control accuracy. The idea of one robot having one (potentially flawed) operator seems exceedingly dated to me. In conjunction with AI and dynamically created battlefield models, we could relegate the human brain into making those decisions that human brain is good at ("that's a terrorist, and that guy is a civilian") and let machines do their job at what they excel at ("let's use drone 17, it has its barrel only 7 degrees away from the target, already moving in the right direction, and can hit it within the next 700 milliseconds").
protomyth 13y ago
When your personal risk is reduced, you do not need to make the split second identification that leeds to a civilian death.

Or, since he is not there he could be even more trigger happy.

by dmishe 13y ago

Or, since he is not there he could be even more trigger happy.

fizx 13y ago

Hopefully, we can use gamification to provide incentives not to kill civilians.

wyager 13y ago

Psychological removal is a serious concern. It could be a lot easier to kill someone when you're removed by a few layers of abstraction.

gngeal 13y ago
On the plus side, doesn't it also lower the psychological harm that happens to many a soldier in sustained war?
- ef4 13y ago
  Actually the experience so far with drone pilots shows that they get PTSD at the same rate as combat pilots who were physically there. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/us/drone-pilots-found-to-get-stress-disorders-much-as-those-in-combat-do.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/us/drone-pilots-found-to-g...
  - gngeal 13y ago
    We're still in the beginning. Removing the "witnessing the carnage" part could still be accomplished one day. As I mentioned, using our brains just to simulate humans on-site controlling stuff at the battlefield may not be the best use we could come up with. Compared to what I had in mind, current drones are just glorified RC models. Thanks for the interesting link, though. This risk is always there, I guess.
scotty79 13y ago
I think it might be other way around. It's harder to kill if you or your friends are not in danger. And if you can see in all gory details and contemplate what effect your weapon has on the body of an enemy.

jared314 13y ago

Hasn't this already been explored with the current generation drone pilots, and previous generation aerial bomber crews.

pkroll 13y ago

But, since it's very likely to record the events on video, there's substantial motivation to do things By The Book.

gngeal 13y ago

Or, N robots could integrate and act upon commands from M operators, where M >> N. Decoupling the control logic from the pointy end could allow you to use the (fast, automatic, and expensive) pointy end at a proper speed without a reduction in control accuracy. The idea of one robot having one (potentially flawed) operator seems exceedingly dated to me. In conjunction with AI and dynamically created battlefield models, we could relegate the human brain into making those decisions that human brain is good at ("that's a terrorist, and that guy is a civilian") and let machines do their job at what they excel at ("let's use drone 17, it has its barrel only 7 degrees away from the target, already moving in the right direction, and can hit it within the next 700 milliseconds").

protomyth 13y ago

When your personal risk is reduced, you do not need to make the split second identification that leeds to a civilian death.