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: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday August 18 2015, @02:21PM
My opposition to drones is more philosophical than pragmatic.
Using drones instead of F-22s or other manned aircraft is presumably a hell of a lot cheaper, and you don't put the pilot in danger--which is a hidden problem. One of the biggest reasons people oppose specific wars is when they're being asked to put their lives on the line to fight somebody they don't really care about.
Wasn't that Vietnam, basically? On the one side you had the determined Communist north, with all their entrenched guerilla networks and hiding in the jungle. On the other side, you had the southern government, which was riddled with corruption and not really able to defend themselves militarily. And all this halfway around the world, in former French Indochina. I'm not aware that the country itself had any real significance per se, it was just the "domino" doctrine that the U.S. didn't want any one country to fall to communism. So as the war dragged on the protests got worse and worse.
If we no longer send our young men (and women) into combat, they and their families lose part of the reason to oppose the war. The military hardware companies, on the other hand, are more than happy to crank out as many drones as the generals can want.
And finally, in the same vein it becomes easier to start new wars because "we're not risking anybody's lives"...well, other than the people who are being bombed by a neverending stream of robots.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 18 2015, @05:50PM
> If we no longer send our young men (and women) into combat, they and their families lose part of the reason to oppose the war.
That is why they eliminated the draft. It used to be that every mother in the country had something to lose. Now it only a small fraction of mothers and that fraction is primarily made up of those with the least political agency in our society. Drones are just a small step compared to that change.