4 ms·
Also consider that autonomous weapons could upend the global power structure: For most of human history, military power has been tied to economic power and pop
by hackuser 11y ago
Also consider that autonomous weapons could upend the global power structure:
For most of human history, military power has been tied to economic power and population size: Those with larger economies and populations have been more powerful. AFAIK, that is why the United States has been the dominant military power since WWII and why China may challenge the U.S. It's also how national governments have maintaind sovereignty, by having far more economic and human resources than any internal competitors (and when that isn't true, such as in poor countries, national governments can be ineffective).
But what if military power depends on the quantity and quality of bots? What stops a smaller or even poorer country from building a robot army? Poor countries have more manufacturing capacity than wealthy ones, AFIAK, and perhaps they need only one innovative, disruputive software developer to make their bot army superior or at least competitive. For example, could tiny Singapore dominate SE Asia or even become a world power? In fact, what stops a sub-national group such as Hezbollah, a Mexican drug cartel, another organized crime group, or even a wealthy individual from building their own army? Without checking the inside of every factory on the planet, will we even know the robot army is being built until it's too late? Will governments be able to protect their citizens from warlords and exercise sovereignty over their own territory? What about poor governments?
It's very speculative -- it remains to be seen, for example, how effective autonomous weapons will be -- but it could be a historic change. Perhaps our hope is that the technology will turn out to be like other weapons, such as airplanes: Anyone can build one, but the single engine prop plane is no threat to what can be built with the Pentagon budget.
- cfontes 11y agoI guess it will be somewhat close to what some other military high-techs. Poor countries have the factories and manufacturing power, but the core of the tecnology is on very few hands. For exmample, Brazil can build Jet Fighter Aircraft, but can it do it without foreign Radar systems? Engines? Missle control systems? and other systems? I don't think they currently can. they can do 90% of it but the part that makes it effective as a weapon is imported and without it the plane is just as useful as a old fighter.
- pageld 11y agoManual manufacturing capacity maybe. The reason 'poorer' countries have a lot of manufacturing is directly related to human cost. 'Richer' countries produce tons of stuff. The production in the richer countries generates high technology products that are built with automated systems. This would lead to the production of the machines to be more reliable, have better materials and be more precise. Having one person generate a better algorithm is an interesting. Having fewer, older, less reliable machines with a 90% "kill" rate go against higher end machines with a 60% "kill" rate. Who would 'win' in that one? I would have no idea. What's stopping something like those warlords/cartels now from making drones to make sure everyone is obeying them? There are some of drones flying around, but they are nothing compared to what the United States throws over the middle east. We are already having machines fight wars for us. They are just remote controlled instead of being totally autonomous.
- ZenoArrow 11y agoI know it's standard tin foil hat territory, but wouldn't the biggest non-governmental risk be large multinational corporations? Some companies have incomes comparable with nation states, I'd have no reason to suspect they'd be any less capable of building military technology that rivalled those from a country.
- zardo 11y agoWhat's tinfoil hat about that? That's basically the history of colonialism. India was ruled by the British East India company for a century.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]