3 ms·

Banning Killer Robots is a great. But I'm fairly certain they are built by Killer Humans. These are just a natural extension of a society that values warfare an

Banning Killer Robots is a great. But I'm fairly certain they are built by Killer Humans. These are just a natural extension of a society that values warfare and hegemony over social justice and peace. Note the differences in robotics applications between countries per the number of wars they've recently engaged in.

angersock 13y ago
The critical difference is this: Eventually, you can expend your supply of Killer Humans if you get too bloodthirsty. You can wage war to the point where the populace is no longer willing to support you--even the elaborate decoupling of war from daily life the US has accomplished was still not enough to prevent the slow tide of opinion from shifting. Killer Machines, however, can be replaced as they are expended, and the plans setting them in motion proceed without issue. The populace never stops it--as long as there is money to buy material to make the things, they can be used. Thus, the use of drones in warfare is not self-limiting the same way that the use of humans is.
- scotty79 13y ago
  Money and material becomes sort of scarce in times of war. Also if machines become advanced autonomous weapons there is no point to target humans since the only thing that can harm your machines are enemy machines. Everybody becomes civilian and killing anybody becomes a war crime. Yay.
  - rainmaking 13y ago
    Well, I suppose one side could publicly advertise their machines are programmed to first kill the enemy machines, and then the enemy humans, just to tactically raise the stakes a little bit when negotiating surrender conditions.
    - scotty79 13y ago
      Like nowadays one side could advertise that after killing soldiers it will slaughter all civilians. It's possible but strongly frowned upon.
      - rainmaking 13y ago
        Crazed dictators exist, so robots make them more dangerous, not less. And robot builders are likely to get targeted by everybody. So no bloodless machine fights.

angersock 13y ago

The critical difference is this: Eventually, you can expend your supply of Killer Humans if you get too bloodthirsty. You can wage war to the point where the populace is no longer willing to support you--even the elaborate decoupling of war from daily life the US has accomplished was still not enough to prevent the slow tide of opinion from shifting. Killer Machines, however, can be replaced as they are expended, and the plans setting them in motion proceed without issue. The populace never stops it--as long as there is money to buy material to make the things, they can be used. Thus, the use of drones in warfare is not self-limiting the same way that the use of humans is.

scotty79 13y ago
Money and material becomes sort of scarce in times of war. Also if machines become advanced autonomous weapons there is no point to target humans since the only thing that can harm your machines are enemy machines. Everybody becomes civilian and killing anybody becomes a war crime. Yay.
- rainmaking 13y ago
  Well, I suppose one side could publicly advertise their machines are programmed to first kill the enemy machines, and then the enemy humans, just to tactically raise the stakes a little bit when negotiating surrender conditions.
  - scotty79 13y ago
    Like nowadays one side could advertise that after killing soldiers it will slaughter all civilians. It's possible but strongly frowned upon.
    - rainmaking 13y ago
      Crazed dictators exist, so robots make them more dangerous, not less. And robot builders are likely to get targeted by everybody. So no bloodless machine fights.