4 ms·

> I would think it better that we have weapon systems that intelligently make an assessment as to whether their target is (A) a combatant, (B) a threat, (C) sur

> I would think it better that we have weapon systems that intelligently make an assessment as to whether their target is (A) a combatant, (B) a threat, (C) surrendered, etc... The problem is that those intelligent systems will be overlorded by the same people overlording the actual military. At least in our current situation a human has to pull the trigger and that person could be potentially charged for crimes against humanity which would make it thinking it twice and potentially resist to follow a direct order. You won't have that with a machine.

fauigerzigerk 11y ago
That's true, but the scenario you are thinking of is one in which the higher ups order a massacre and the soldier on the ground refuses to carry out the order. I believe that the more frequent case is when soldiers on the ground are having to make split second life and death decisions, quite possibly panicking themselves. If they get it wrong, they're dead. An AI can make split second decisions without panicking and without any consideration for its own "survival". For any mistakes an AI makes, those higher up will get the blame (ideally), not some 20 year old who was scared for his own life when he made the decision to kill everyone on that overloaded truck because he it wouldn't stop 10 seconds earlier. That said, I shudder at the thought of a world in which people get killed by machines who will never be whistleblowers, who do not go home with post traumatic stress disorder, telling everyone how horrible war really is.
- pmelendez 11y ago
  > I believe that the more frequent case is when soldiers on the ground are having to make split second life and death decisions Tha't ok, but I think you are assuming that the "good guys" are the only ones that would have access to this. Truth is that once one government start doing this, all the others will follow and even the organized crime would have access to that technology.
  - fauigerzigerk 11y ago
    Even if both sides use machines, that doesn't make it any worse than both sides using humans, on the contrary. But as I said, the wider consequences are a different matter.
    - pmelendez 11y ago
      I think I didn't explain myself clearly... What I meant is that once one side has it, it will go outside of common warfare pretty quickly. You are thinking in Gov. A vs. Gov. B both using machines. My concern is that after that, Gov. B will use machines against humans C inside the same country, or in the neightborhood. And in those cases, "technical errors" can be used as excuse after a tragedy. And that's only one of my concerns... add organized crime and terrorism to the mix and you will have a very explosive soup.
      - fauigerzigerk 11y ago
        I think your assumptions are very realistic and I share your concerns. But looking back at the history of war or combat, I don't feel that human nature has been a mitigating factor. On the contrary.

fauigerzigerk 11y ago

That's true, but the scenario you are thinking of is one in which the higher ups order a massacre and the soldier on the ground refuses to carry out the order. I believe that the more frequent case is when soldiers on the ground are having to make split second life and death decisions, quite possibly panicking themselves. If they get it wrong, they're dead. An AI can make split second decisions without panicking and without any consideration for its own "survival". For any mistakes an AI makes, those higher up will get the blame (ideally), not some 20 year old who was scared for his own life when he made the decision to kill everyone on that overloaded truck because he it wouldn't stop 10 seconds earlier. That said, I shudder at the thought of a world in which people get killed by machines who will never be whistleblowers, who do not go home with post traumatic stress disorder, telling everyone how horrible war really is.

pmelendez 11y ago
> I believe that the more frequent case is when soldiers on the ground are having to make split second life and death decisions Tha't ok, but I think you are assuming that the "good guys" are the only ones that would have access to this. Truth is that once one government start doing this, all the others will follow and even the organized crime would have access to that technology.
- fauigerzigerk 11y ago
  Even if both sides use machines, that doesn't make it any worse than both sides using humans, on the contrary. But as I said, the wider consequences are a different matter.
  - pmelendez 11y ago
    I think I didn't explain myself clearly... What I meant is that once one side has it, it will go outside of common warfare pretty quickly. You are thinking in Gov. A vs. Gov. B both using machines. My concern is that after that, Gov. B will use machines against humans C inside the same country, or in the neightborhood. And in those cases, "technical errors" can be used as excuse after a tragedy. And that's only one of my concerns... add organized crime and terrorism to the mix and you will have a very explosive soup.
    - fauigerzigerk 11y ago
      I think your assumptions are very realistic and I share your concerns. But looking back at the history of war or combat, I don't feel that human nature has been a mitigating factor. On the contrary.