5 ms·

The funny thing about policy wonks is that they believe policy, diplomacy and international law are the only way things get resolved, even amidst the state of n

The funny thing about policy wonks is that they believe policy, diplomacy and international law are the only way things get resolved, even amidst the state of nature that persists between international actors. The reason stock markets have black swans is because legal transactions can never account for illegal activity. Sure, you can buy replacement insurance against theft, but you cannot actually build theft into an accounting model. Stock markets, as social laboratories of economic exchange, will always have crashes because there are black markets that operate behind them in secrecy. Certain companies might befall "unfortunate accidents" and whoopsie daisy! How did that happen? Consider the question: How interested are you in being arrested and imprisoned by a robotic civilian police officer?

ballard 13y ago
Policy, war and business are different arenas for the same game: who gets comfortable and who gets dead.
georgemcbay 13y ago
"Consider the question: How interested are you in being arrested and imprisoned by a robotic civilian police officer?" Basically exactly the same as I'm interested in being arrested and imprisoned by a meat-cop. And the robocop might win just based on the fact that he's less likely to have a "respect mah authoritai" chip on his shoulder that results in me being tazed or shot for no good reason.
- NAFV_P 13y ago
  > And the robocop might win just based on the fact that he's less likely to have a "respect mah authoritai" chip on his shoulder that results in me being tazed or shot for no good reason. Concerning the film "Robocop", it was interesting that you discover most of his character traits after he has been transformed into a cyborg, and my opinion is that he was a brutal copper.
- downer83 13y ago
  When your accusers are provided the luxury of never having to face you, how confident are you that "the law" will be carried out fairly, and that the "laws" themselves will not be arbitrary? Just as confident as you are now of the law? This is about power differential. Imbalances of power contribute to instability. The kinds of power discussed in this equation are vast, and not to be trifled with. Errors made with the toys of modern warfare can be unforgiving to the point that submarine personnel might be the only survivors. When you scale up conflict beyond the individual concept of arrest and imprisonment, there is a volatility to open warfare that is whithering, when compared to civil society. If you're that eager to thwart some cops in their activities, then vote a draft into law, advocate mandatory military service and then go rob a bank and shoot some tellers while you're at it. I dare you.
  - georgemcbay 13y ago
    "Just as confident as you are now of the law?" Well, yes. But that's primarily because I am not currently confident in the law.
    - downer83 13y ago
      Which is worse? A robotic crime wave, or a human crime wave? A robotic miscarriage of justice, or a human miscarriage of justice? I think, in both situations, the two are not equivalent, and the robotic version is not only worse, but carries the potential of total devastation. But maybe I'm chicken little.
- ballard 13y ago
  Don't get caught and you won't be arrested. Further, you can probably spot weaknesses in a machine that can't construct new strategies outside its programming or has to be controlled remotely.
krapp 13y ago
The devil's advocacy response would be that because robots lack the capacity for malice, racism or cruelty, they can be trusted to bring to bear the force of law more so than human cops. Also that robot soldiers, lacking fear or the clouded judgement that comes from fatigue or moral conflict, and having enhanced sensory and physical capabilities, would cause less collateral damage than human troops. This is a similar (though not the same) argument to the one employed by advocates of self-driving cars - humans are less morally capable than machines by virtue of their organic technological and logical inadequacy.
- arethuza 13y ago
  "The devil's advocacy response would be that because robots lack the capacity for malice, racism or cruelty" What makes you think that a robot couldn't be programmed to show malice, racism or cruelty? NB I am not implying that the US would actually do this, just questioning whether there are really any fundamental barriers stopping the creation of machines with such malign goals.
  - krapp 13y ago
    I suppose they could be, it depends entirely on their capabilities and AI, but it wouldn't have to be as intrinsic to their nature as it's assumed to be for human beings in that role. Why would you bother creating an immoral robot soldier or a racist robot cop?
    - Kliment 13y ago
      Because real-time remote control tech exists today, for drones, and it's highly likely that at least at first it will be racist immoral humans making the decisions, with no immediate risk of loss of life or bodily harm, just like it is now for drones.
- ballard 13y ago
  The theory of evolution should encompass techniques, politics and non-organic tools as part of more a capable existence that is bigger than anthropocentrism and organicentrism. That the rifle and the soldier are a machine together, just as a rifle on wheels. How the rifle got there doesn't matter but what does matter is the decision process of whether it fires or not. Right now, the ROE for USM legally requires an officer to approve any kill order made remotely (drone strike). That might not always be the case going forward, especially for secret wars as well as adversaries that just want any kind of revenge.

ballard 13y ago

Policy, war and business are different arenas for the same game: who gets comfortable and who gets dead.

georgemcbay 13y ago

"Consider the question: How interested are you in being arrested and imprisoned by a robotic civilian police officer?" Basically exactly the same as I'm interested in being arrested and imprisoned by a meat-cop. And the robocop might win just based on the fact that he's less likely to have a "respect mah authoritai" chip on his shoulder that results in me being tazed or shot for no good reason.

NAFV_P 13y ago
> And the robocop might win just based on the fact that he's less likely to have a "respect mah authoritai" chip on his shoulder that results in me being tazed or shot for no good reason. Concerning the film "Robocop", it was interesting that you discover most of his character traits after he has been transformed into a cyborg, and my opinion is that he was a brutal copper.
downer83 13y ago
When your accusers are provided the luxury of never having to face you, how confident are you that "the law" will be carried out fairly, and that the "laws" themselves will not be arbitrary? Just as confident as you are now of the law? This is about power differential. Imbalances of power contribute to instability. The kinds of power discussed in this equation are vast, and not to be trifled with. Errors made with the toys of modern warfare can be unforgiving to the point that submarine personnel might be the only survivors. When you scale up conflict beyond the individual concept of arrest and imprisonment, there is a volatility to open warfare that is whithering, when compared to civil society. If you're that eager to thwart some cops in their activities, then vote a draft into law, advocate mandatory military service and then go rob a bank and shoot some tellers while you're at it. I dare you.
- georgemcbay 13y ago
  "Just as confident as you are now of the law?" Well, yes. But that's primarily because I am not currently confident in the law.
  - downer83 13y ago
    Which is worse? A robotic crime wave, or a human crime wave? A robotic miscarriage of justice, or a human miscarriage of justice? I think, in both situations, the two are not equivalent, and the robotic version is not only worse, but carries the potential of total devastation. But maybe I'm chicken little.
ballard 13y ago
Don't get caught and you won't be arrested. Further, you can probably spot weaknesses in a machine that can't construct new strategies outside its programming or has to be controlled remotely.

krapp 13y ago

The devil's advocacy response would be that because robots lack the capacity for malice, racism or cruelty, they can be trusted to bring to bear the force of law more so than human cops. Also that robot soldiers, lacking fear or the clouded judgement that comes from fatigue or moral conflict, and having enhanced sensory and physical capabilities, would cause less collateral damage than human troops. This is a similar (though not the same) argument to the one employed by advocates of self-driving cars - humans are less morally capable than machines by virtue of their organic technological and logical inadequacy.

arethuza 13y ago
"The devil's advocacy response would be that because robots lack the capacity for malice, racism or cruelty" What makes you think that a robot couldn't be programmed to show malice, racism or cruelty? NB I am not implying that the US would actually do this, just questioning whether there are really any fundamental barriers stopping the creation of machines with such malign goals.
- krapp 13y ago
  I suppose they could be, it depends entirely on their capabilities and AI, but it wouldn't have to be as intrinsic to their nature as it's assumed to be for human beings in that role. Why would you bother creating an immoral robot soldier or a racist robot cop?
  - Kliment 13y ago
    Because real-time remote control tech exists today, for drones, and it's highly likely that at least at first it will be racist immoral humans making the decisions, with no immediate risk of loss of life or bodily harm, just like it is now for drones.
ballard 13y ago
The theory of evolution should encompass techniques, politics and non-organic tools as part of more a capable existence that is bigger than anthropocentrism and organicentrism. That the rifle and the soldier are a machine together, just as a rifle on wheels. How the rifle got there doesn't matter but what does matter is the decision process of whether it fires or not. Right now, the ROE for USM legally requires an officer to approve any kill order made remotely (drone strike). That might not always be the case going forward, especially for secret wars as well as adversaries that just want any kind of revenge.