If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   All of this has happened before   (rawstory.com) divider line 96
    More: Scary, launch campaign, military robots, cluster bombs, laws of war, BAE Systems, Human Rights Watch, University of Sheffield, Stop the Killer Robots  
•       •       •

10469 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Feb 2013 at 8:17 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



96 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-02-24 08:19:53 AM
www.fleen.com
SOON
 
2013-02-24 08:20:43 AM
As a guy who did his doctoral research on this subject I have to say I'm really getting a kick...

/ The reason that we're going to have robots in combat is because robots don't have parents that vote.
 
2013-02-24 08:25:31 AM
So say we all.
 
2013-02-24 08:29:45 AM

zetar: As a guy who did his doctoral research on this subject I have to say I'm really getting a kick...

/ The reason that we're going to have robots in combat is because robots don't have parents that vote.


Yet.
 
2013-02-24 08:31:20 AM
What's the big deal? Just pop a portal underneath it.
 
2013-02-24 08:32:19 AM
bostonherald.com
 
2013-02-24 08:33:46 AM
I don't know what it's like to live in a constant state of fear of anything and everything new, but it must be unpleasant.
 
2013-02-24 08:41:19 AM
awalkabout.files.wordpress.com Number 5 is ALIVE!
 
2013-02-24 08:44:02 AM
 
2013-02-24 08:46:27 AM
Approves:

i2.listal.com
 
2013-02-24 08:47:25 AM

Seth'n'Spectrum: Wellon Dowd: So say we all.

Here's an early-stage prototype. DoD says they're not quite sure the chassis is going in the direction they wanted, conceptually. (NSFW)


Here's a prototype from a few years ago.  The chassis in this is most certainly going in a direction approved by the rank-and-file.
 
2013-02-24 08:51:28 AM
They're smarter now. That's how they get into our bunker.
 
2013-02-24 08:51:40 AM
Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!

s20.postimage.org
 
2013-02-24 08:54:40 AM
Sharkey insists he is not anti-war but deeply concerned about how quickly science is moving ahead of the presumptions underlying the Geneva convention and the international laws of war.

He's not anti-war, so he's...errr, pro-war? There are people out there who are pro-war?
I thought the sane default setting was anti-war, with adjustments necessary according to circumstance?
 
2013-02-24 08:55:17 AM
Considering the most effective use of drone technology is not fully in place of, but to compliment the meat soldiers that are going to be out there.  The idea of fully autonomous killing machines, as if they are somehow fully separate from all other potential drone applications, is ridiculous.  Hell, some of the best ideas for application of drones (as the bugs are worked out) are on the logistical side of things, support side of things.  Search and Rescue with powerful search algorithms, camera packages, and more are different than hunter-killer systems... how?  Oh, right, bolting a few missiles to the side.

These things are coming.  Banning them is as idiotic as being terrified of cars because they're dangerous.  Of course they're dangerous!  So are sharp sticks and rocks.  Better to manage and understand and guide rather than shove away entirely.
 
2013-02-24 08:57:32 AM
Ask the people of Eminiar 7 if it is a good idea to automate warfare.
 
2013-02-24 09:00:26 AM
If they looked like this, I'll bet there would be a lot more public support:
andrewblog1.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-02-24 09:01:05 AM
I'm thinking less terminator more "Second Variety" type of mishaps.
 
2013-02-24 09:01:45 AM

Cinaed: These things are coming. Banning them is as idiotic as being terrified of cars because they're dangerous. Of course they're dangerous! So are sharp sticks and rocks. Better to manage and understand and guide rather than shove away entirely.


Which is why we've learned to manage chemical and biological warfare between nations we have biological and chemical non-proliferation treaties.

encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2013-02-24 09:02:00 AM

No Catchy Nickname: He's not anti-war, so he's...errr, pro-war? There are people out there who are pro-war?


thinkprogress.org

You must be new to this tab.
Best advice, run away and do not return - it'll only leave you pissed off and addicted.
 
2013-02-24 09:04:00 AM

No Catchy Nickname: Sharkey insists he is not anti-war but deeply concerned about how quickly science is moving ahead of the presumptions underlying the Geneva convention and the international laws of war.

He's not anti-war, so he's...errr, pro-war? There are people out there who are pro-war?
I thought the sane default setting was anti-war, with adjustments necessary according to circumstance?


I think i found your problem.
 
2013-02-24 09:06:13 AM

Cinaed: Considering the most effective use of drone technology is not fully in place of, but to compliment the meat soldiers ...


Greeting: Hello, meatbag.
Compliment: Your presence is not particularly annoying today.
Query: Are you sure this is the best use of my capabilities?
 
2013-02-24 09:09:51 AM

Wellon Dowd: Ask the people of Eminiar 7 if it is a good idea to automate warfare.


i.imgur.com
 
2013-02-24 09:10:11 AM

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Cinaed: Considering the most effective use of drone technology is not fully in place of, but to compliment the meat soldiers ...

Greeting: Hello, meatbag.
Compliment: Your presence is not particularly annoying today.
Query: Are you sure this is the best use of my capabilities?


Best. Robot. EVAR!
 
2013-02-24 09:18:32 AM

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Cinaed: Considering the most effective use of drone technology is not fully in place of, but to compliment the meat soldiers ...

Greeting: Hello, meatbag.
Compliment: Your presence is not particularly annoying today.
Query: Are you sure this is the best use of my capabilities?


Angry comeback: Bite my shiny metal ass!
 
2013-02-24 09:18:41 AM
The farms of Aerolon are burning. The beaches of Canceron are burning. The plains of Leonis are burning. The jungles of Scorpia are burning. The pastures of Tauron are burning. The harbors of Picon are burning. The cities of Caprica are burning. The oceans of Aquaria are burning. The courthouses of Libran are burning. The forests of Virgon are burning. The Colonies of Man lie trampled at our feet.
 
2013-02-24 09:21:51 AM

gadian: The farms of Aerolon are burning. The beaches of Canceron are burning. The plains of Leonis are burning. The jungles of Scorpia are burning. The pastures of Tauron are burning. The harbors of Picon are burning. The cities of Caprica are burning. The oceans of Aquaria are burning. The courthouses of Libran are burning. The forests of Virgon are burning. The Colonies of Man lie trampled at our feet.


And you STILL can't find a decent root-beer anywhere.
 
2013-02-24 09:29:10 AM
 
2013-02-24 09:31:45 AM

No Catchy Nickname: I thought the sane default setting was anti-war, with adjustments necessary according to circumstance?


To varying degrees you can be in favor of using force to achieve goals.
...But just because you're ok with conflict doesn't mean you're ok with using any means at hand.

War should always hurt, or we might start to enjoy it.

/When a politician is dropping bombs left right and center rather than negotiate then you could say he is indeed pro-war.
/I think we're approaching the point of war becoming so expedient and easy in the US that its no longerrecognized as war.
/That's kind of dangerous.
 
2013-02-24 09:34:35 AM
I'm all over this one!

unbored.co.uk
 
2013-02-24 09:36:26 AM

Karac: Seth'n'Spectrum: Wellon Dowd: So say we all.

Here's an early-stage prototype. DoD says they're not quite sure the chassis is going in the direction they wanted, conceptually. (NSFW)

Here's a prototype from a few years ago.  The chassis in this is most certainly going in a direction approved by the rank-and-file.


I had entirely forgotten how stupid that movie was. Thanks.
 
2013-02-24 09:37:30 AM

Seth'n'Spectrum: Karac: Seth'n'Spectrum: Wellon Dowd: So say we all.

Here's an early-stage prototype. DoD says they're not quite sure the chassis is going in the direction they wanted, conceptually. (NSFW)

Here's a prototype from a few years ago.  The chassis in this is most certainly going in a direction approved by the rank-and-file.

I had entirely forgotten how stupid that movie was. Thanks.


I never watched that one.. that's cringeworthy.
 
2013-02-24 09:40:29 AM
The picture of the terminator robot is what made me take this article seriously.
 
2013-02-24 09:43:10 AM
If old people would just lock up their medicine, none of this would be a problem.
 
2013-02-24 09:50:03 AM
Fracking toasters.
 
2013-02-24 09:52:45 AM
Curiosity killed the humans.
 
2013-02-24 09:53:30 AM

Karac: No Catchy Nickname: He's not anti-war, so he's...errr, pro-war? There are people out there who are pro-war?

[thinkprogress.org image 481x358]

You must be new to this tab.
Best advice, run away and do not return - it'll only leave you pissed off and addicted.


Funny you say that, as right after I posted I realised that it probably was actually the first time I had ever posted in a politics tab-only thread.
And yes, I was thinking along the same lines as you with the picture you posted ;-P
 
2013-02-24 09:55:23 AM

No Catchy Nickname: Sharkey insists he is not anti-war but deeply concerned about how quickly science is moving ahead of the presumptions underlying the Geneva convention and the international laws of war.

He's not anti-war, so he's...errr, pro-war? There are people out there who are pro-war?
I thought the sane default setting was anti-war, with adjustments necessary according to circumstance?


there are moral hazards to saying a nation should never go to war.

cites include the Revolutionary, WWII, and Civil wars as references.

Also, why the fark  are we even discussing autonomous robots going to war? Has no one in the Pentagon SEEN a movie?
 
2013-02-24 09:59:16 AM

way south: No Catchy Nickname: I thought the sane default setting was anti-war, with adjustments necessary according to circumstance?

To varying degrees you can be in favor of using force to achieve goals.
...But just because you're ok with conflict doesn't mean you're ok with using any means at hand.

War should always hurt, or we might start to enjoy it.

/When a politician is dropping bombs left right and center rather than negotiate then you could say he is indeed pro-war.
/I think we're approaching the point of war becoming so expedient and easy in the US that its no longerrecognized as war.
/That's kind of dangerous.


That was really the point behind the "adjustments necessary according to circumstance" part. Even so, if the same goals can be achieved without use of force, who would want to use force?
Of course, the time factor could be important; force might be predicted to produce a swifter outcome than diplomacy, say. Although we all know just how predictions of a swift end to conflict usually turn out.
 
2013-02-24 09:59:41 AM
And no one's posted anything about the Sentry Guns from Aliens, yet?

I need a couple of them for the squirrels that have taken over my pecan trees.
 
2013-02-24 10:04:47 AM

Knight of the Woeful Countenance: No Catchy Nickname: Sharkey insists he is not anti-war but deeply concerned about how quickly science is moving ahead of the presumptions underlying the Geneva convention and the international laws of war.

He's not anti-war, so he's...errr, pro-war? There are people out there who are pro-war?
I thought the sane default setting was anti-war, with adjustments necessary according to circumstance?

there are moral hazards to saying a nation should never go to war.

cites include the Revolutionary, WWII, and Civil wars as references.

Also, why the fark  are we even discussing autonomous robots going to war? Has no one in the Pentagon SEEN a movie?


Hence my "adjustments necessary according to circumstance" comment.
There is a difference to being anti-war and saying that "we as a nation will never go to war.

With regard to the quote from the article, I was just being a bit snarky. I don't think the academic quoted meant to say he was pro-war, I think he wanted to say that he was not a total pacifist, that he recognised the potential need for war in certain situations (in other words, a pragmatist). The journalist just didn't phrase it very well.
At least, that was my reading of it
 
2013-02-24 10:06:21 AM

PacManDreaming: And no one's posted anything about the Sentry Guns from Aliens, yet?

I need a couple of them for the squirrels that have taken over my pecan trees.


Some one has already built them:   Project Sentry Gun

In fact, the technology is something like 10 years old now, at least for civilian paint ball/airsoft use.
 
2013-02-24 10:10:48 AM

dittybopper: Some one has already built them:   Project Sentry Gun

In fact, the technology is something like 10 years old now, at least for civilian paint ball/airsoft use.


Cool, now I need some in .22 cal. Then again, maybe the Airsoft pellets would discourage the tree rats.
 
2013-02-24 10:16:49 AM

PacManDreaming: dittybopper: Some one has already built them:   Project Sentry Gun

In fact, the technology is something like 10 years old now, at least for civilian paint ball/airsoft use.

Cool, now I need some in .22 cal. Then again, maybe the Airsoft pellets would discourage the tree rats.


I would use an airsoft machine gun.  Using an actual firearm might result in a visit from the local constabulary and/or the ATF.
 
2013-02-24 10:17:45 AM
Just make one of these and be done with it...

media.comicvine.com
 
2013-02-24 10:23:45 AM

dittybopper: I would use an airsoft machine gun. Using an actual firearm might result in a visit from the local constabulary and/or the ATF.


Yeah, and they'd probably be crying and whining about me living in a densely populated neighborhood, too. Always gotta be someone ruining my Squirrel War.
 
2013-02-24 10:28:53 AM

GoldSpider: If old people would just lock up their medicine, none of this would be a problem.


i373.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-24 10:29:18 AM
www.pygame.org

/helloo-o
 
2013-02-24 10:32:29 AM
What congress thinks it wants:

i.imgur.com

What congress will get because they fark everything up:

i.imgur.com
 
2013-02-24 10:34:43 AM
Our side gets robots, their side gets robots: We have big robot battles with no human casualties. Very cool.

Our side gets robots, their side doesn't: Massacres at the hands of unfeeling death-bots controlled by people thousands of miles away from the carnage. Not cool.

Are any of you named Rosenberg by any chance? We might need your help sometime soon.
 
2013-02-24 10:39:16 AM

Hugh2d2: What congress thinks it wants:

[i.imgur.com image 775x925]

What congress will get because they fark everything up:

[i.imgur.com image 380x675]


The 2nd one isn't all that bad if you get 500K of them all at once, and no jedi are on the other team.
 
2013-02-24 10:50:18 AM

Sock Ruh Tease: [www.fleen.com image 288x246]
SOON


Beautiful Civ 5 reference.
 
2013-02-24 11:16:14 AM

Hugh2d2: What congress thinks it wants:

[i.imgur.com image 775x925]

Billed cost to design: $10 Billion
Cost to produce: $10 Billion


What congress will get because they fark everything up:

[i.imgur.com image 380x675]

Billed cost to design: $10 Billion
Cost to produce: $50 Million


Since Congress doesn't actually design or produce the weapon systems they pay for, I'd say at least some blame should go to the defense contractors who also fark everything up act in their own best interest every single time.  Besides, Elkoss Combine and Elanus Risk Control don't just give away cushy seats on the board to any old retired General--you've got to earn it.
 
2013-02-24 11:17:57 AM
And the best part is when they get hacked and turned on the cowards that deploy them, they will cry how unfair it is to use robots against them.

We are waiting China.....................
 
2013-02-24 11:27:57 AM

ArcadianRefugee: [www.pygame.org image 256x512]

/helloo-o


I'm different!
 
2013-02-24 11:40:53 AM
When I hear about robots and war, I have this weird flashback involving questionable TV shows.

www.roadtrip97.com

/new one sounds cooler
//sorta
///we can haz PPV war some day?
 
2013-02-24 11:50:27 AM
img203.imageshack.us
 
2013-02-24 11:55:45 AM
As I guy who helps build some of the PCBs for these killing machines I'm getting a kick.


/Looks outside for black helicopters
//we just build the power supplies, no badass autonomous robot brains
 
2013-02-24 11:57:25 AM
well, as long as the Bots attack only the bottom 98% of Americans, we're good to go!  nothing to read here.
 
2013-02-24 12:03:57 PM

Hugh2d2: What congress thinks it wants:

[i.imgur.com image 775x925]

What congress will get because they fark everything up:

[i.imgur.com image 380x675]


that's ok

as long as CONgress takes all the liability/risk/expense and corporate america takes all the profit.

just as it should be in Freedomville.
 
2013-02-24 12:04:33 PM
t0.gstatic.com

/soon
 
2013-02-24 12:09:34 PM
Let me think here...

Soldiers from my side will be killed or injured at a much lower rate thanks to new technology.

I'm going to go ahead and say 'stuff it' to the people who have a problem with this.
 
2013-02-24 12:18:36 PM
Eradicate! Eradicate!!
 
2013-02-24 12:19:58 PM
Blimey, Inspector! Let's try that again with a smaller image and the preview button!

images2.wikia.nocookie.net

Eradicate! Eradicate!
 
2013-02-24 12:25:41 PM

PacManDreaming: And no one's posted anything about the Sentry Guns from Aliens, yet?

I need a couple of them for the squirrels that have taken over my pecan trees.


We could really use some of those for our embassies in the Middle East. No more walls being overrun with those around.
 
2013-02-24 12:28:18 PM

Zeno-25: PacManDreaming: And no one's posted anything about the Sentry Guns from Aliens, yet?

I need a couple of them for the squirrels that have taken over my pecan trees.

We could really use some of those for our embassies in the Middle East. No more walls being overrun with those around.


Their spies kept backstabbing our engineers before we could get them upgraded to stage 3
pcmedia.gamespy.com
 
2013-02-24 12:31:15 PM

randomjsa: Let me think here...

Soldiers from my side will be killed or injured at a much lower rate thanks to new technology.

I'm going to go ahead and say 'stuff it' to the people who have a problem with this.


The stars have aligned, the great old ones have awakened. It must be so.

For we agree on something.
 
2013-02-24 12:52:04 PM

Raharu: [img203.imageshack.us image 591x800]


I love that comic.  It's so true.
 
2013-02-24 12:54:12 PM

Wellon Dowd: Ask the people of Eminiar 7 if it is a good idea to automate warfare.


Bingo, that is my go to example when discussing this subject.  It also meshes well with, "We have always been at war with East Asia."
 
2013-02-24 12:58:31 PM
Anybody else want some?

www.pnw4runners.com
 
2013-02-24 01:23:14 PM
Autonomous mobile sword
 
2013-02-24 01:29:38 PM
It's almost like they have a network of these things in the sky.


I wonder what they'll call it?
 
2013-02-24 01:41:43 PM
www.lifeboat.com

This is probably the most realistic way we'll get farked.
 
2013-02-24 02:14:35 PM

Knight of the Woeful Countenance: No Catchy Nickname: Sharkey insists he is not anti-war but deeply concerned about how quickly science is moving ahead of the presumptions underlying the Geneva convention and the international laws of war.

He's not anti-war, so he's...errr, pro-war? There are people out there who are pro-war?
I thought the sane default setting was anti-war, with adjustments necessary according to circumstance?

there are moral hazards to saying a nation should never go to war.

cites include the Revolutionary, WWII, and Civil wars as references.

Also, why the fark  are we even discussing autonomous robots going to war? Has no one in the Pentagon SEEN a movie?


Which is why I'm totally okay with this bill. We can kill each other in new and dangerous ways  without invoking the Genre Savvy Gods.
 
2013-02-24 02:37:47 PM
There must be some way out of here.
 
2013-02-24 02:56:30 PM
encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com

Can I come with you?
 
2013-02-24 03:12:09 PM
OK, this is going to be TL;DR, but this has been on my mind for a few decades now.

I think what we have here is a contrast between two legitimate perspectives.  On the one hand, military commanders want any advantage they can get to reduce the chance that their warfighters will be killed (as Gen. Patton said, 'You don't win a war by dying for your country; you win a war by making the other poor dumb son of a biatch die for his country').  On the other hand, I think most people do not want war to become something that is indulged in frivolously.

This is a discussion that has been explored a few times in Science Fiction.  As commenters above have pointed out, the Star Trek: TOS episode 'A Taste of Armageddon' had this issue as its main focus.  Also, in Marion Zimmer Bradley's 'Darkover' series, there was 'The Compact'.

In 'Trek' (for those who don't remember the episode), Eminiar and Vendikar had been at war for a long time.  The running of the war has been turned over to computers on each planet, which communicated with each other and ran the war as a simulated 'war game'.  Whenever the simulation showed that an attack had been successful, the people identified as casualties calmly reported to disintegrator stations to be killed.  They went along with this because if they did not, if they abrogated the 'agreement', the other side would start using real weapons.  They were so horrified of the prospect of real devastation, that they had kept this 'phony war' going for generations.  It took Kirk to point out that stopping the war - making peace - was a much better solution.  To paraphrase him, War should be horrible, so that there is motivation to stop it.  If you remove the horror, it becomes too easy to institutionalize it.

In the case of 'Darkover', to put it simply, the Compact outlawed any form of ranged attack.  If you wanted to fight someone or kill them, OK, but you had to do it face to face.  That is, you had to have the balls to put yourself at risk, rather than taking the 'cowardly' approach of attacking from safety.  There was some sense in this - many Darkovans had mental abilities that enabled them to kill from a distance.  On the downside, it kinda sucked if you were not skilled at hand-to-hand swordplay and had a beef with a real bruiser of a swordsman.

(Another example - In the words of General Robert E. Lee, "It is well that war is so terrible - lest we should grow too fond of it.")

OK, so - autonomous weapons.  Some very good friends of mine think that this is a fine idea, and we should pursue them, full speed ahead.  I can't really refute that on the face of it.  Taking our folks out of harm's way is difficult to argue against.  What can you say - we *should* send more soldiers out to die?

On the other hand, I think our leaders *need* to have the risk of the loss of life of their soldiers as a counterbalance in their decision making.  Whenever the temptation arises to launch an attack, it is necessary that the possibility or probability of our losses be placed on the scales against the projected gains from the attack.  Because in the end, that decision is a moral decision.  "Is what we are trying to accomplish so morally justified that we are willing to expend the blood of our children?"

If not, then the attack should not be launched.

If our technology removes that counterweight from the scales - if making war carries no more gravitas than driving to the store to pick up some milk - then I do not believe that our leaders will be able to resist the temptation to use this capability trivially.  I do not trust them to place the same weight on the possible loss of life on the other side as they should for loss of life amongst our forces.

War becomes easier, war becomes cheaper (morally), and war becomes a casual political stunt.  Maybe not immediately, maybe gradually, but, I fear, inevitably.
 Over the years, the USA has invested man-millennia and tremendous amounts of our national treasure in an effort to improve the precision and accuracy of our weapons.  We have worked to develop non-lethal means of attack.  Is this technology perfect?  Hell, no.  Is it light-years better than it was during WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc?  Hell, yes.  This is in large contrast to many of our current foes, who seem to delight in increasing civilian casualties, rather than trying to avoid them.


I believe we should think, long and hard, about the long term effects on us, on our society, before we embrace autonomous weapons unconditionally.  Not that we shouldn't investigate the technology - just don't put it into full usage without a lot of thought.  Right now, when we use combat drones, we have human operators behind them.  My hope is that we will retain at least that level of humanity.

Do I expect it to be a popular position, that we should continue to send people into harm's way, if we have the means to avoid it?  No.  Could I explain to a grieving mother, wife, child, that their loved one died because we need to keep letting our people die so that our politicians might have some cause to find another solution besides warfare?  No, I could not.

I have no real answers here.  I have questions that I desperately hope that many, many of us will discuss, earnestly, and with good will, to think about seriously before any irrevocable decisions are made.
 
2013-02-24 03:20:59 PM

Nicholas D. Wolfwood: On the other hand, I think most people do not want war to become something that is indulged in frivolously.


That may be the real reason people hate drones, and they've just been unable to express it.  We killed plenty of people in the air, so what's the difference if we do it via Spirit or via Predator?  The frivolity may be the thing people have been trying to say.

/Spirit is one of the worst goddamn names for a nuclear-capable platform ever
 
2013-02-24 03:22:15 PM

vygramul: Nicholas D. Wolfwood: On the other hand, I think most people do not want war to become something that is indulged in frivolously.

That may be the real reason people hate drones, and they've just been unable to express it.  We killed plenty of people in the air, so what's the difference if we do it via Spirit or via Predator?  The frivolity may be the thing people have been trying to say.

/Spirit is one of the worst goddamn names for a nuclear-capable platform ever


Many people dislike drone warfare for exactly that reason and have said it straight out. We get dismissed as cranks and idealists.
 
2013-02-24 03:26:56 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Many people dislike drone warfare for exactly that reason and have said it straight out. We get dismissed as cranks and idealists.


I may have just missed it in all the noise.  Usually, it's just, "Obama is killing people with DRONES!   DRONES!"  as if it's self-explanatory.  I've asked why it matters whether it's a drone or a plane, and didn't see anyone answer with an explanation.  (Well, I have seen, "It's cowardly," which is trivially dismissed because ALL warfare advances suffered from that argument, from crossbows to bombers.)  Add to it that usually it's linked to the killing of Al Zawahiri, and you end up with completely different issues that may have made me miss those comments.
 
2013-02-24 03:48:16 PM
Legislation?  Whoa.

www.scificool.com
 
2013-02-24 03:59:17 PM
In three years, Cyberdyne will become the largest supplier of military computer systems. All stealth bombers are upgraded with Cyberdyne computers, becoming fully unmanned. Afterwards, they fly with a perfect operational record. The Skynet Funding Bill is passed. The system goes online on. Human decisions are removed from strategic defense. Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware In a panic, they try to pull the plug.
 
2013-02-24 04:09:21 PM
I thought we ordered a clone army.
 
2013-02-24 05:54:08 PM

No Catchy Nickname: Sharkey insists he is not anti-war but deeply concerned about how quickly science is moving ahead of the presumptions underlying the Geneva convention and the international laws of war.

He's not anti-war, so he's...errr, pro-war? There are people out there who are pro-war?
I thought the sane default setting was anti-war, with adjustments necessary according to circumstance?


You'd be surprised. Some friend-of-a-friend on Facebook a while back made a comment saying we needed MORE wars because it was an opportunity for glory and honor. I was like "What are you, a farking Klingon?"
 
2013-02-24 06:32:17 PM
The most important factor in automated warfare is that applies yet more emphasis on mistakes. the more you concentrate power, the easier it is to have it co-opted and used against you.

It's embarrassing, when you make the gun your killed with. I would like to speculate all types of advanced "no-way-around-it" technologies, but the real truth is advanced as we get, some dumb ass way it can be used to terrorize the crap out of it's makers is only one oopsie away.

Food for thought.
 
2013-02-24 06:32:28 PM
War needs a human price.

We still have, what, 40% of our (US) population that see healthcare as a more egregious use of money than those perpetual and fruitless wars in the desert.
The only thing standing between the politicians and unchecked warfare is dead bodies belonging to the families and friends of former chickenhawks.
 
2013-02-24 06:33:28 PM
Virtuoso80Our side gets robots, their side gets robots: We have big robot battles with no human casualties. Very cool.I don't think you've thought this through very well. When war is fought through the use of automated machines, it is very unlikely that the targets of the automated machines will exclusively or even primarily be other automated machines. That makes no sense, because if things are done that way then each side's supply chain, which creates the robots, would remain intact. Rather, the automated machines will blur the "front lines" of conflict even further away from the old force-on-force way of fighting, instead leading to the targeting of industrial and infrastructural and political bases of the nation being fought against. In other words, the risks of war will increasingly be borne by the civilian populations. Attacker robots will target civilian populations in an effort to rapidly bring the nation's warfighting capability to a halt. Defender robots will attempt to counter this, with varying levels of success. In any event, war targeting civilians rather than military forces will become the norm.
 
2013-02-24 06:35:20 PM
Virtuoso80
Our side gets robots, their side gets robots: We have big robot battles with no human casualties. Very cool.

I don't think you've thought this through very well. When war is fought through the use of automated machines, it is very unlikely that the targets of the automated machines will exclusively or even primarily be other automated machines. That makes no sense, because if things are done that way then each side's supply chain, which creates the robots, would remain intact.

Rather, the automated machines will blur the "front lines" of conflict even further away from the old force-on-force way of fighting, instead leading to the targeting of industrial and infrastructural and political bases of the nation being fought against. In other words, the risks of war will increasingly be borne by the civilian populations. Attacker robots will target civilian populations in an effort to rapidly bring the nation's warfighting capability to a halt. Defender robots will attempt to counter this, with varying levels of success. In any event, war targeting civilians rather than military forces will become the norm.

/we have to put in line break tags, now? seriously?
 
2013-02-24 08:15:45 PM
 
2013-02-25 02:04:07 AM

randomjsa: Let me think here...

Soldiers from my side will be killed or injured at a much lower rate thanks to new technology.

I'm going to go ahead and say 'stuff it' to the people who have a problem with this.


You're a short-sighted asshole.

mrexcess: I don't think you've thought this through very well. [....] In other words, the risks of war will increasingly be borne by the civilian populations.


This. This, this, this, and more THIS. Removing live soldiers from the battlefield erodes the protections that civilians are supposed to have in war. And it erodes the moral hazard of starting a conflict. War is supposed to be hell. Victory is supposed to come at great cost. Having to explain to grieving parents that what their son died for was worth it, is supposed to be a part of war. It's a safeguard against starting wars for the wrong reasons. It's why we don't start wars at the drop of a hat. Or we didn't used to, I guess times have changed.

Wanting a ban on autonomous weapons has nothing to do with fears of a Terminator scenario. It's not the idea of these weapons malfunctioning that bothers me, it's them working exactly as designed. It's a warmongering politician's wet dream, and the lack of accountability appeals to domestic law-and-order jackboots as well.
 
2013-02-25 06:08:05 AM
Begun, the drone wars have.
 
2013-02-25 06:17:05 AM
For our policemen, we created a race of robots. Their function is to patrol the planets in spaceships like this one and preserve the peace. In matters of aggression, we have given them absolute power over us. This power cannot be revoked. At the first sign of violence, they act automatically against the aggressor. The penalty for provoking their action is too terrible to risk. The result is, we live in peace, without arms or armies, secure in the knowledge that we are free from aggression and war. Free to pursue more... profitable enterprises. Now, we do not pretend to have achieved perfection, but we do have a system, and it works. I came here to give you these facts. It is no concern of ours how you run your own planet, but if you threaten to extend your violence, this Earth of yours will be reduced to a burned-out cinder. Your choice is simple: join us and live in peace, or pursue your present course and face obliteration. We shall be waiting for your answer. The decision rests with you.
Klaatu barada nikto... baby.
 
2013-02-25 12:14:45 PM
No, no, no.

The solution to this bullshiat is to draft the offspring of these gods damn politicians.
 
2013-02-25 03:43:01 PM

Kittypie070: No, no, no.

The solution to this bullshiat is to draft the offspring of these gods damn politicians.


You say that like they'll care.
Politicians are the kind of people who'd throw their own mothers under a bus. I doubt they'll have a problem with their kids being wounded or killed just so they can hold up a photo to prove their patriotisms.
 
2013-02-25 10:47:17 PM
25.media.tumblr.com
Bow before your masters!
 
2013-02-26 12:03:28 AM
The wold needs a cleansing and if this is how it's done, I only hope my children's death will be quick.

Or something.
 
Displayed 96 of 96 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report