31–40 of 55 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's unfair, yes. But how is it unimpressive?
> more impressed. Of course it's quite impressive! Israel's R&D efforts are nothing short of that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not what's going to happen. One side will have robots, the other will have humans. This is already happening.
That's better than both sides being humans. Seriously. Incremental improvements are worthwhile. In general, militaries never want to comprise their effectiveness. So if given the chance to implement a life-saving intervention that harms their effectiveness, they will be reluctant at best to implement it. But this is a life-saving intervention that possibly even increases their effectiveness! That's what truly makes i…
We make them ourselves, against ourselves.
Can't wait to see someone hacking these machines and turn them against their former owners.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't it better to have robots fighting and dying than humans? War sucks, and I do wish that we could have world peace. But if war is going to happen, I'd rather it be robots that are the ones in harm's way.
That's not what's going to happen. One side will have robots, the other will have humans. This is already happening.
With robots involved it would most definitely be a one-sided reduction in casualties, but it already is so one-sided I'm not sure that it would meaningfully alter the numbers in that conflict. Take the 2014 Israel-Gaza war, for instance (numbers from Wikipedia):
Israel: 70 casualties, 90% military.
Gaza: around 2 500 casualties, 30-40% military (depending on source, but even Israel estimates <50%).
20 Run live tests on technology
30 Use the proof of real life usage in a low boil conflict to sell the technology at international arms fairs.
40 Use realistic test conditions to refine & develop new technology for 2 years.
50 GOTO 10
This efficient QA/development cycle is a serious competitive advantage, since it's hard for other countries to replicate the same controlled conflict conditions. Hence these great sales figures: https://rwer.wordpress.com/2016/01/12/the-15-largest-arms-ex...
And it's been ~2 years since the last conflict, so...: http://europe.newsweek.com/us-calls-americans-leave-gaza-soo...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not what's going to happen. One side will have robots, the other will have humans. This is already happening.
That's better than both sides being humans. Seriously. Incremental improvements are worthwhile. In general, militaries never want to comprise their effectiveness. So if given the chance to implement a life-saving intervention that harms their effectiveness, they will be reluctant at best to implement it. But this is a life-saving intervention that possibly even increases their effectiveness! That's what truly makes i…
We always assume, that the technology always stays with the good guys.
This stuff is literally a dictators wet dream.
I would be more impressed if their opponent were more technically sophisticated. You have people pretending to build a tank on one hand and people with automated robots on the other? Seems a bit overkill and pointless IMHO.
"Overkill" is the defining feature of Western military. We've got to the point where we consider a ratio of 1 (of ours) : 1000 (of theirs) unacceptable. It's very hard to present an argument that says we should accept more deaths on our own side in order to be "fairer" to the other side. However, the net effect is that we continue to minimize our risk in ways that de-humanize conflict and increase collateral damage.
[1] http://www.longlongtrail.co.uk/battles/battles-of-the-wester...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Hamburg_in_World_Wa...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can't we just get a kind of programmer's Hippocratic oath going here? Let's just all not facilitate autonomous shooting. I know both sides of the argument. I know it won't prevent it being done. I just mean if enough people agreed not to do it, then we'd at least generate enough disapproval for it not to be the subject of any PR Puff.
Weapons that autonomously decide when to explode have existed since WW2 with radar proximity fuses and modern guided weapons can select targets (e.g. "fire and forget" Brimstone missiles). Where do we draw the dividing line?
There was still a human that chose the target, and a human that chose to fire on the target.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's unfair, yes. But how is it unimpressive?
> more impressed. Of course it's quite impressive! Israel's R&D efforts are nothing short of that.
I'm surprised this hasnt been done sooner. Waypoint navigation is a consumer product, and we've had military grade target tracking for ages.
Electric vehicles with solar charging would be very cost-effective as a border security mechanism.
Where are all the border security startups? Lots of government cash on the table I would think.