SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Opposition to the creation of autonomous robot weapons have been the subject of discussion here recently. The New York Times has added another voice to the chorus with this article:
The specter of autonomous weapons may evoke images of killer robots, but most applications are likely to be decidedly more pedestrian. Indeed, while there are certainly risks involved, the potential benefits of artificial intelligence on the battlefield — to soldiers, civilians and global stability — are also significant.
The authors of the letter liken A.I.-based weapons to chemical and biological munitions, space-based nuclear missiles and blinding lasers. But this comparison doesn't stand up under scrutiny. However high-tech those systems are in design, in their application they are "dumb" — and, particularly in the case of chemical and biological weapons, impossible to control once deployed.
A.I.-based weapons, in contrast, offer the possibility of selectively sparing the lives of noncombatants, limiting their use to precise geographical boundaries or times, or ceasing operation upon command (or the lack of a command to continue).
Personally, I dislike the idea of using AI in weapons to make targeting decisions. I would hate to have to argue with a smart bomb to try to convince it that it should not carry out what it thinks is is mission because of an error.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 18 2015, @06:36AM
The previous generation of autonomous weapons have already been outlawed. They were called land mines.
So, the complete opposite of drones? Sorry, I don't believe this will happen, unless the military get absolutely no say in this.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Tuesday August 18 2015, @06:44AM
Yeah but when you have stuff like that they can hack it and turn it against you.
Didn't you watch Solid Snake 4 on Youtube? Good movie.
(Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 18 2015, @06:54AM
Dude! Nobody fucking remembers what a landmine is. War is Good. War kills Bad Guys. If you diss us for killing Bad Guys, that makes you a Bad Guy. Greets from Prez Bama! You gonna get fucked up, Bad Guy!
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Tuesday August 18 2015, @08:42AM
There is a new generation of automated weapons in use: automated [as in, not directly human controlled] machine guns on the North/South Korean border [on the South side].
And given that there is no effective way to tell at any distance the difference between a 'combatant' and a 'noncombatant', I guess by 'possibility' they mean, "we might not kill everyone in sight".
And given that there are a significant number of wealthy sociopaths involved in running countries, independent military contractor organizations, and weapons creation, besides the sociopaths in virtually all military's, there is approximately zero chance that, if the first A.I. isn't directly created by one of them, it will be stolen/given to them to immediately incorporation in as many weapons systems as possible ASAP.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Tuesday August 18 2015, @01:56PM
Pretty much. And just look at the mess that mines did, those are still killing and maiming people every year even though they've been banned by most countries.
An automated gun that's mounted is a bit better, as in you know where they are, but allowing them to move about and make their own decisions isn't something that a decent person would be OK with. The applications that it's designed for are mostly things we shouldn't be encouraging in the first place. It's a way of rich countries being able to get away with things that poor countries can't afford to get away with. There will be an increase in lives lost, but because they're lives on the other side, that's OK, because they clearly don't deserve to live.
We should be moving into an era where fewer people are dieing in these small dick contests, but we keep creating bigger and better ways of blowing each other up without considering why. We wouldn't have ever needed a lot of this crap if people hadn't created the previous generation. Muskets would have done just fine if nobody had bothered to invent shells.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2015, @02:49PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19 2015, @06:52PM
We wouldn't have ever needed a lot of this crap if people hadn't created the previous generation.
Yes, none of us would be here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 20 2015, @02:09AM
"The previous generation of autonomous weapons have already been outlawed. They were called land mines."
Might want to tell that to the people in Iraq and Afghanistan. Oh sure they call them by a different name, IED in this case, but at the end of the day they are using landmines to great effect.
Chemical and Biological weapons were easy to outlaw. They were temperamental at the best of times and as dangerous to the person using them as the person they were being used against.
Nukes are avoided because using them escalates a conflict to a point that politicians don't want to go to.
Landmines are cheap and highly effective. Yea you can "outlaw" them, but the moment someone feels the need for them they're gonna have them rolling off the assembly line in two weeks at most.
The ban is bad in that once someone feels the need for them and gives the finger to whatever treaty, they are probably gonna go for cheaper persistent mines rather than mines that deactivate. Instead, it should have "banned" persistent mines and encouraged mines that deactivate, best method I have seen is simply require a battery to detonate and let the battery life be the limiting factor.
Such a blanket feel-good measure is certainly going to be broken sometime in the future and we will be back to the same problem we had before, persistent landmines.