4 ms·

The US better get out in front on this and engage in the debate and get something they can sign. Elsewise the result will be something impractical and both 'go

The US better get out in front on this and engage in the debate and get something they can sign. Elsewise the result will be something impractical and both 'good' and 'bad' guys will get a pass. Don't pretend everyone won't be able to afford this because robots will be cheap enough eventually for both sides to go this automated. Engagement is the better option.

jacquesm 17y ago
The lower the price of something the higher the volume. Risking yourself while killing somebody else increases the price on your side. If that risk disappears the 'cost' gets so low that the volume might increase dramatically.
- yummyfajitas 17y ago
  On the flip side, the cost of caution also decreases. Scenario: a person is approaching a checkpoint and does not obey verbal commands. No civilians are present near the checkpoint. Human soldier: "Oh shit, shoot him, I don't want to get blown up!" Robot soldier: "Direct extra scrutiny towards target. Do not allow him to approach civilians. Allow him to approach the checkpoint. I only cost $100,000, no reason to kill a human to save my metallic skin."
  - citation_needed 17y ago
    The tragedy is, to the people calling the shots (ie. the invading military or government), a foreign civilian's life would probably be worth far less than $100,000. As a previous comment notes, civilians killed are thought of as 'collateral'. That's just not acceptable. The burden lies with the occupying/invading forces to do everything possible to make sure civilians aren't killed or harmed in any way. Even actions that would lead to rations being withheld or basic needs not being met could be considered a breach of international humanitarian law and the fourth Geneva Convention.
  - anigbrowl 17y ago
    Wrong. The manufacturing cost of the robot may be a mere $100,000. But besides the argument that human lives are often valued at less than that, there's also the security argument: 'we can't allow our technology to be stolen and exploited by the enemy'. I can pretty much guarantee you that one will get trotted out. It's not very logical, but that has never mattered in war. I mean, let's not be naive here. When the fighting in Iraq was intense a few years ago, the biggest threat to coalition (and especially US) soldiers was 'IEDs' - improvised explosive devices, which in turn was a fancy name for 'homemade mines'. Generally these were triggered by cellphone and there were many comments about how cowardly and evil this was (because it was happening to us). Imagine the reaction if these had been mobile devices - or more accurately, when they are. Because while there are many engineering challenges involved, there's nothing fundamentally difficult about it.
riffic 17y ago
I'd support a Geneva Convention-style ban on robotic warfare. on second thought, not an outright ban, but there should be some serious limitations set in place before we completely dehumanize the process.
- anigbrowl 17y ago
  Honestly, I don't think this will make any difference. The Geneva convention seems to left on the shelf in cases of asymmetric war, not least because the weaker side is highly unlikely to be in a position to prosecute violations afterwards.

jacquesm 17y ago

The lower the price of something the higher the volume. Risking yourself while killing somebody else increases the price on your side. If that risk disappears the 'cost' gets so low that the volume might increase dramatically.

yummyfajitas 17y ago
On the flip side, the cost of caution also decreases. Scenario: a person is approaching a checkpoint and does not obey verbal commands. No civilians are present near the checkpoint. Human soldier: "Oh shit, shoot him, I don't want to get blown up!" Robot soldier: "Direct extra scrutiny towards target. Do not allow him to approach civilians. Allow him to approach the checkpoint. I only cost $100,000, no reason to kill a human to save my metallic skin."
- citation_needed 17y ago
  The tragedy is, to the people calling the shots (ie. the invading military or government), a foreign civilian's life would probably be worth far less than $100,000. As a previous comment notes, civilians killed are thought of as 'collateral'. That's just not acceptable. The burden lies with the occupying/invading forces to do everything possible to make sure civilians aren't killed or harmed in any way. Even actions that would lead to rations being withheld or basic needs not being met could be considered a breach of international humanitarian law and the fourth Geneva Convention.
- anigbrowl 17y ago
  Wrong. The manufacturing cost of the robot may be a mere $100,000. But besides the argument that human lives are often valued at less than that, there's also the security argument: 'we can't allow our technology to be stolen and exploited by the enemy'. I can pretty much guarantee you that one will get trotted out. It's not very logical, but that has never mattered in war. I mean, let's not be naive here. When the fighting in Iraq was intense a few years ago, the biggest threat to coalition (and especially US) soldiers was 'IEDs' - improvised explosive devices, which in turn was a fancy name for 'homemade mines'. Generally these were triggered by cellphone and there were many comments about how cowardly and evil this was (because it was happening to us). Imagine the reaction if these had been mobile devices - or more accurately, when they are. Because while there are many engineering challenges involved, there's nothing fundamentally difficult about it.

riffic 17y ago

I'd support a Geneva Convention-style ban on robotic warfare. on second thought, not an outright ban, but there should be some serious limitations set in place before we completely dehumanize the process.

anigbrowl 17y ago
Honestly, I don't think this will make any difference. The Geneva convention seems to left on the shelf in cases of asymmetric war, not least because the weaker side is highly unlikely to be in a position to prosecute violations afterwards.