6 ms·

I think the innocent victims that we make today will get us on track to developing better drones with more resolution and less errors and doubt. I imagine a pe

by neals 13y ago

I think the innocent victims that we make today will get us on track to developing better drones with more resolution and less errors and doubt. I imagine a perfect drone without any human controller, doing it's business by AI, actually making the world a better place. [edit] lots of hate and naive comments. Fact remains that human progress has always come through sacrificing some of us for the greater good. Innocent people have always died and will keep dying until we get to a point where robots take over for us. I am not being sarcastic. I stand by my opinion.

fit2rule 13y ago
What a disgusting point of view. The only thing that would make the world a better place is if the funding for death-machines was instead being used to deliver water purification plants, schools and education packages, medical supplies - to those human beings living in the 'foreign lands' who really need it. For the cost of a single Hellfire, many Afghanistan villages could've been given power, for the first time, to charge their phones, making it possible for them to communicate, to educate themselves. But instead: BOOM! There goes some kids leg. What a pity that the desire to create such technology is not, instead, being directed by the government towards truly peaceful technologies..
- giardini 13y ago
  fit2rule: "the funding for death-machines was instead being used to deliver water purification plants, schools and education packages, medical supplies - to those human beings living in the 'foreign lands' who really need it." And what happens when people who accept those plants, schools and education are killed by people who don't want them to accept those gifts from us? Back in the Vietnam era I made the same argument you do (for awhile). But the VC learned to kill villagers who accepted aid. The same thing goes on today in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc. In a better world, one without war, I would agree with you. But that is not the world we live in. Sometimes you have to think things through to second-order and higher effects.
  - fit2rule 13y ago
    The cost of one drone would provide ample resources for a village in Afghanistan to educate itself and defend itself from other killers. Drop books not bombs!
    - cmdkeen 13y ago
      You do realise the Taliban are specifically opposed to Western education, especially the education of women. You have groups like Boko Haram (literally "Western education is sinful"). Dropping books on villages when the security situation hasn't been established is akin to dropping landmines - anyone who picks one up and takes it home risks being killed. There is a very good reason the Afghan campaign was about providing security in an area first then building schools, providing power, healthcare etc. The problem is that Helmand province (especially) is so close the Pakistani border, and thus limitless reinforcements, providing the security there to do anything else is nigh on impossible.
      - fit2rule 13y ago
        Educating new generations is vital to the effort to replace these heinous groups with sane, functioning societies. Just because 'its hard to educate' doesn't justify the continued killing of innocents.
        cmdkeen 13y ago
        No-one is saying that we shouldn't try to educate our potential enemies, especially in places like Afghanistan. I'm just pointing out that your "drop books on them instead" it fatuous and wouldn't work. Provide the security so that people won't be killed for being educated, and education is best. Educating without security just leads to dead kids.
        fit2rule 13y ago
        Look, take the amount of technology developed to murder, kill and maim - and instead use that same degree of technology to educate, enlighten, and liberate. How hard is it to understand this concept? It was once very, very difficult to drop a bomb on a childs head from afar - you used to have to do a lot more. Now its 'easy', relatively speaking. Imagine if that same scale of efficacy were applied, instead, to educating - to healing - to helping instead of killing. What would the "B1 Bomber" of education systems look like? Lets develop it, and deliver.
- neals 13y ago
  Yes. However, nobody is interested in funding these types of drones. The military has the budget to really kickstart drone development and take us to the next level. As alwasy, the military leads the way in science with their limitless budget, funded by fear. Peaceful spinoff project is where the benefits for everybody will come from.
- AndrewKemendo 13y ago
  For the cost of a single Hellfire, many Afghanistan villages could've been given power, for the first time, to charge their phones, making it possible for them to communicate, to educate themselves. A nice thought, but anyone who has spent time in rural AFG/PAK or Yemen/Somalia (where most of this is happening) will tell you that that is not what would happen. More typical, the power would be diverted to or ripped out by the local warlords to maintain their own power over the population - and most of the "regular" citizens go along with it because it meets cultural demands of the religiosity and tribalism that has been baked in for. Liberalism (classic) can't be forced on a region or a group of people.
pygy_ 13y ago
Tell me you were being sarcastic. Please.
- neals 13y ago
  I am being sarcastic, right now. Please tell me you live in a world of grown-ups where progress and sacrifice go hand in hand.
  - pygy_ 13y ago
    In reply to your edit to the parent post: robots won't take over for us. If they are ever in such a position of power, they'll get rid of us. I'm not exactly looking forwards to it. Among other things, human history is the combined evolution of sociological and technological progress. Societal progress has peaked a while ago. Technology has been riding the curiosity and mental ability of the most brilliant among us, and is currently busy building its next vehicle. The tragedy of the commons means that it will be very, very difficult to impede that trend, assuming it is possible at all.
    - neals 13y ago
      None of this is based on facts or study. I like the fiction you present though.
      - pygy_ 13y ago
        It is completely factual. Look at life and human history from an information theoretic point of view. DNA for long term storage, cell to cell communication culminating in multicellular organisms, nervous systems and memory, symbolic communication and information transmission through conversations. Writing, printing, telegraphs; computers, networked. Technology is a self-amplifying meme, and, now that there are technological means to transmit, persist and process complex information outside of human brains, we are no longer necessary to perpetuate it.
dleibovic 13y ago
To me, that is a perverse thought. I cannot justify the killing of innocents today to make the world a better place tomorrow.
duairc 13y ago
Would would a perfect drone make the world a better place? What would be better about that world?
rossjudson 13y ago
I'm upvoting your comment because you should have to deal with its dehumanizing effect. You imagine the victims of drones to be, perhaps, no different from those voluntarily participating in medical trials.
classicsnoot 13y ago
No one ever wants to portray death as a technical aberration because it is an icky feeling. Also, people love to be self righteous and condescending because it adds millimetres to their imaginary pedestal. Just to rile them up more, which guy campaigning for president in 2008 had killed more Americans by hand, McCain or Obama? The answer is shocking, but not unbelievable. My grandfather was a naval aviator. He told me about a dear friend who was smashed to bits immediately after take-off because the deck crew had installed his control surfaces backwards. Was he a person, or a lesson to future deck crews? was it a tragedy, or a teachable moment? If you are like me, you are easily able to divorce the appalling human costs to obtain the raw data of cause and effect. I have had to force myself to temper my observation, given that most people do not want you pointing out unique anatomical facets whilst a person lays bifurcated. Pay them no mind, fellow freak. It was our lot that were the first barber-surgeons and grave robbers, and it is through our collective twisted perspective that we will continue to stick our little babby fingers in the wall socket of the unknown.
- jaekwon 13y ago
  Surely you're intelligent enough to see the distinction between Barber surgeons, grave robbers, and killing machines. There's a whole world of applications for AI and machinery that we could be pooling our resources into, but instead we're funding a continuing war on "terror" abroad. There's no reason why the war is necessary, no reason why technological progress would be made faster in the art of killing vs anything else. Perhaps you believe that perpetual war is unavoidable and necessary. We could argue that. But the way I see it, war isn't necessary, and the technological progress we make by funding war is a slim silver lining at best on a double edged sword with no handle. So you see, I find this thread ridiculous. I think you guys are psychopaths. And you're outnumbered by the rest of us.
  - classicsnoot 13y ago
    Your use of "us" is adorable. There have always been more of "you". Who else would make up the wave assaults, mass labour pools, and factory employees? War may not be necessary from an emotional standpoint, but from a technological standpoint it is the only game in town. The recent developments in peaceful IT are unique in human history, and they themselves are predicated on war technology and research. In fact, i challenge you to name one area of technology that is not based on war research and military development. I don't think you can name a single device that is not built off of something war related. I have a special place in my heart for the myth of pure science and research. I also believe it could become a reality. I posted ITT about how it might be possible to counter the militarization of our air. I think a few successive generations of scientists who are not affiliated with war making could bring about peaceful advancement, but as it stands now, technology absolutely requires mistrustful nations, reckless generals, and politely amoral science and tech workers. All of that AI and "machinery" has a military background. They control the purse, so they dictate the purpose. Surely you are canny enough to know that petty appeals to my "intelligence" only serve to make you seem desperate to be right. All 3 of those things, hell all things, are neither good nor bad. They are merely titles given based on context. Context is everything. A civilian sees a RPV as a killing machine. A EOD tech sees a drone as an insurance policy. A president sees a Predator as a solution. I see a way for normal people to enhance their effect in shaping their world. All of us see the same toy, but we all have a different use for it. Surely you are intelligent enough to understand that context can bring new light to any topic or situation...
jaekwon 13y ago
The key difference is in the violence. People sacrifice themselves voluntarily for the slim chance of gain and the real chance of progress, all the time. There's no reason to think that killing is a necessary or efficient method of finding progress. Methinks you just like killing people. That's pretty psychopathic. Don't you have any friends?
- neals 13y ago
  There is no need for such talk. We can at least pretend to be grown-ups and have a discussion. Violence is not the key difference. Dying when a plance crashes into your home or dying from a rocket fired from a malfunctioning drone are just as violent and just as "meaningless" to the next of kin. However, in both cases we learn something and we progress. I'm sorry, but the world does not work in the way that Disney has made you believe.

by neals 13y ago

fit2rule 13y ago

What a disgusting point of view. The only thing that would make the world a better place is if the funding for death-machines was instead being used to deliver water purification plants, schools and education packages, medical supplies - to those human beings living in the 'foreign lands' who really need it. For the cost of a single Hellfire, many Afghanistan villages could've been given power, for the first time, to charge their phones, making it possible for them to communicate, to educate themselves. But instead: BOOM! There goes some kids leg. What a pity that the desire to create such technology is not, instead, being directed by the government towards truly peaceful technologies..

giardini 13y ago
fit2rule: "the funding for death-machines was instead being used to deliver water purification plants, schools and education packages, medical supplies - to those human beings living in the 'foreign lands' who really need it." And what happens when people who accept those plants, schools and education are killed by people who don't want them to accept those gifts from us? Back in the Vietnam era I made the same argument you do (for awhile). But the VC learned to kill villagers who accepted aid. The same thing goes on today in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc. In a better world, one without war, I would agree with you. But that is not the world we live in. Sometimes you have to think things through to second-order and higher effects.
- fit2rule 13y ago
  The cost of one drone would provide ample resources for a village in Afghanistan to educate itself and defend itself from other killers. Drop books not bombs!
  - cmdkeen 13y ago
    You do realise the Taliban are specifically opposed to Western education, especially the education of women. You have groups like Boko Haram (literally "Western education is sinful"). Dropping books on villages when the security situation hasn't been established is akin to dropping landmines - anyone who picks one up and takes it home risks being killed. There is a very good reason the Afghan campaign was about providing security in an area first then building schools, providing power, healthcare etc. The problem is that Helmand province (especially) is so close the Pakistani border, and thus limitless reinforcements, providing the security there to do anything else is nigh on impossible.
    - fit2rule 13y ago
      Educating new generations is vital to the effort to replace these heinous groups with sane, functioning societies. Just because 'its hard to educate' doesn't justify the continued killing of innocents.
      - cmdkeen 13y ago
        No-one is saying that we shouldn't try to educate our potential enemies, especially in places like Afghanistan. I'm just pointing out that your "drop books on them instead" it fatuous and wouldn't work. Provide the security so that people won't be killed for being educated, and education is best. Educating without security just leads to dead kids.
        fit2rule 13y ago
        Look, take the amount of technology developed to murder, kill and maim - and instead use that same degree of technology to educate, enlighten, and liberate. How hard is it to understand this concept? It was once very, very difficult to drop a bomb on a childs head from afar - you used to have to do a lot more. Now its 'easy', relatively speaking. Imagine if that same scale of efficacy were applied, instead, to educating - to healing - to helping instead of killing. What would the "B1 Bomber" of education systems look like? Lets develop it, and deliver.
neals 13y ago
Yes. However, nobody is interested in funding these types of drones. The military has the budget to really kickstart drone development and take us to the next level. As alwasy, the military leads the way in science with their limitless budget, funded by fear. Peaceful spinoff project is where the benefits for everybody will come from.
AndrewKemendo 13y ago
For the cost of a single Hellfire, many Afghanistan villages could've been given power, for the first time, to charge their phones, making it possible for them to communicate, to educate themselves. A nice thought, but anyone who has spent time in rural AFG/PAK or Yemen/Somalia (where most of this is happening) will tell you that that is not what would happen. More typical, the power would be diverted to or ripped out by the local warlords to maintain their own power over the population - and most of the "regular" citizens go along with it because it meets cultural demands of the religiosity and tribalism that has been baked in for. Liberalism (classic) can't be forced on a region or a group of people.

pygy_ 13y ago

Tell me you were being sarcastic. Please.

neals 13y ago
I am being sarcastic, right now. Please tell me you live in a world of grown-ups where progress and sacrifice go hand in hand.
- pygy_ 13y ago
  In reply to your edit to the parent post: robots won't take over for us. If they are ever in such a position of power, they'll get rid of us. I'm not exactly looking forwards to it. Among other things, human history is the combined evolution of sociological and technological progress. Societal progress has peaked a while ago. Technology has been riding the curiosity and mental ability of the most brilliant among us, and is currently busy building its next vehicle. The tragedy of the commons means that it will be very, very difficult to impede that trend, assuming it is possible at all.
  - neals 13y ago
    None of this is based on facts or study. I like the fiction you present though.
    - pygy_ 13y ago
      It is completely factual. Look at life and human history from an information theoretic point of view. DNA for long term storage, cell to cell communication culminating in multicellular organisms, nervous systems and memory, symbolic communication and information transmission through conversations. Writing, printing, telegraphs; computers, networked. Technology is a self-amplifying meme, and, now that there are technological means to transmit, persist and process complex information outside of human brains, we are no longer necessary to perpetuate it.

dleibovic 13y ago

To me, that is a perverse thought. I cannot justify the killing of innocents today to make the world a better place tomorrow.

duairc 13y ago

Would would a perfect drone make the world a better place? What would be better about that world?

rossjudson 13y ago

I'm upvoting your comment because you should have to deal with its dehumanizing effect. You imagine the victims of drones to be, perhaps, no different from those voluntarily participating in medical trials.

classicsnoot 13y ago

No one ever wants to portray death as a technical aberration because it is an icky feeling. Also, people love to be self righteous and condescending because it adds millimetres to their imaginary pedestal. Just to rile them up more, which guy campaigning for president in 2008 had killed more Americans by hand, McCain or Obama? The answer is shocking, but not unbelievable. My grandfather was a naval aviator. He told me about a dear friend who was smashed to bits immediately after take-off because the deck crew had installed his control surfaces backwards. Was he a person, or a lesson to future deck crews? was it a tragedy, or a teachable moment? If you are like me, you are easily able to divorce the appalling human costs to obtain the raw data of cause and effect. I have had to force myself to temper my observation, given that most people do not want you pointing out unique anatomical facets whilst a person lays bifurcated. Pay them no mind, fellow freak. It was our lot that were the first barber-surgeons and grave robbers, and it is through our collective twisted perspective that we will continue to stick our little babby fingers in the wall socket of the unknown.

jaekwon 13y ago
Surely you're intelligent enough to see the distinction between Barber surgeons, grave robbers, and killing machines. There's a whole world of applications for AI and machinery that we could be pooling our resources into, but instead we're funding a continuing war on "terror" abroad. There's no reason why the war is necessary, no reason why technological progress would be made faster in the art of killing vs anything else. Perhaps you believe that perpetual war is unavoidable and necessary. We could argue that. But the way I see it, war isn't necessary, and the technological progress we make by funding war is a slim silver lining at best on a double edged sword with no handle. So you see, I find this thread ridiculous. I think you guys are psychopaths. And you're outnumbered by the rest of us.
- classicsnoot 13y ago
  Your use of "us" is adorable. There have always been more of "you". Who else would make up the wave assaults, mass labour pools, and factory employees? War may not be necessary from an emotional standpoint, but from a technological standpoint it is the only game in town. The recent developments in peaceful IT are unique in human history, and they themselves are predicated on war technology and research. In fact, i challenge you to name one area of technology that is not based on war research and military development. I don't think you can name a single device that is not built off of something war related. I have a special place in my heart for the myth of pure science and research. I also believe it could become a reality. I posted ITT about how it might be possible to counter the militarization of our air. I think a few successive generations of scientists who are not affiliated with war making could bring about peaceful advancement, but as it stands now, technology absolutely requires mistrustful nations, reckless generals, and politely amoral science and tech workers. All of that AI and "machinery" has a military background. They control the purse, so they dictate the purpose. Surely you are canny enough to know that petty appeals to my "intelligence" only serve to make you seem desperate to be right. All 3 of those things, hell all things, are neither good nor bad. They are merely titles given based on context. Context is everything. A civilian sees a RPV as a killing machine. A EOD tech sees a drone as an insurance policy. A president sees a Predator as a solution. I see a way for normal people to enhance their effect in shaping their world. All of us see the same toy, but we all have a different use for it. Surely you are intelligent enough to understand that context can bring new light to any topic or situation...

jaekwon 13y ago

The key difference is in the violence. People sacrifice themselves voluntarily for the slim chance of gain and the real chance of progress, all the time. There's no reason to think that killing is a necessary or efficient method of finding progress. Methinks you just like killing people. That's pretty psychopathic. Don't you have any friends?

neals 13y ago
There is no need for such talk. We can at least pretend to be grown-ups and have a discussion. Violence is not the key difference. Dying when a plance crashes into your home or dying from a rocket fired from a malfunctioning drone are just as violent and just as "meaningless" to the next of kin. However, in both cases we learn something and we progress. I'm sorry, but the world does not work in the way that Disney has made you believe.