4 ms·
Tactically to survive the immediate onslaught, perhaps, but strategically you don't fight autonomous weapons by attacking the weapons, but by attacking the peop
by ctdonath 11y ago
Tactically to survive the immediate onslaught, perhaps, but strategically you don't fight autonomous weapons by attacking the weapons, but by attacking the people controlling them. 1 minute after the nuclear/neutron/EMP bomb has detonated, the next wave of killer robots is released from the hardened bunkers by the remote staff, and you're back where you started; it's the remote staff - and anyone/everything they care about - who must be taken down until surrender.
An "open borders" policy, tolerating & assimilating anyone who brazenly bypasses the checkpoints, is a gaping security void with a giant "STRIKE HERE" sign in flashing neon. [I don't say that to start that argument, but to point to the stark reality of the parent post's premise.]
- hackuser 11y ago> strategically you don't fight autonomous weapons by attacking the weapons, but by attacking the people controlling them. They are autonomous, so human control might not be a factor.
- crpatino 11y agoThey still need to be fed objectives/missions or something. Hopefully you are not suggesting to release robotic serial killers with no strategic purpose, are you?
- hackuser 11y ago> you are not suggesting to release robotic serial killers with no strategic purpose, are you? It won't be my idea, but someone may do it. Consider someone without the resources or motivation to code the decision-making component, but they can code 'shoot every living thing' and drop the bot into enemy territory (preferrably far from their own territory). Also, to some degree the AI can generate it's own objectives. Also, IIRC one objective of autonomy is for the AI to be able to identify and attack unforseen targets.