Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Slaughterbots: Stop Autonomous Weapons [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 134 posts

Re: Slaughterbots: Stop Autonomous Weapons [video]

#31

Post by jrochkind1 »

neuro_imager wrote: post #3

Unfortunately I don't see a way this can be avoided.There has never been a weapon humanity imagined, designed, and built that it has not used. AI will be no different. A ban would be impossible to implement. What exactly would you ban? AI? Drones? facial recognition? Once you have a certain level of capability in these technologies, weaponising these things is the easy part.

We can make it considered unacceptable and against international law. Like chemical weapons. Which still happen, but not as much as they would if the U.S were, say, planning on using them all over the place, doing heavy R&D into them, and selling them to other people. Like, you know, robot kill bots.

Re: Slaughterbots: Stop Autonomous Weapons [video]

#32

Post by jrochkind1 »

jabretti wrote: post #23
daxorid wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another option is that some of us really look forward to real-life sentry gun turrets; we actually want this future.

Let's sit back and take a chill pill. Will this capability exist? Yes, probably. Am I concerned that this capability will be deployed against me? No, not really. Theoretically it could, but then again, so could a dude with a gun. I live in a democratic first-world country, the capabilities of my own government are likely to exceed the capabilities of those who want to kill me. And theoretically maybe my government mi…

It's nice to live in the country that's at the top of the global political order, it's just _our_ "enemies" that have to worry about this sort of thing.

For now. Things change.

Re: Slaughterbots: Stop Autonomous Weapons [video]

#33

Post by redeploy-test »

basicplus2 wrote: post #2

I find it Strange that nobody generally comments on this including all the previous postings.. is it because people think it is inevitable and there is nothing they can do to stop it? or is it because people think it is fantasy and could never happen?

I noticed that too. I believe the answer is the repression of fear.

The human mind will avoid awareness of a possibility that would involve extreme psychological distress. When something is "too terrible to imagine" ... people will completely not acknowledge it.

This applies to many cognitive situations, including an individual's predictions about the future. It also applies to determining the intent of other people, and even a person's self image and memories.

What is frightening is that the same principle really makes mass atrocities possible. Psychology and history show clearly that people would rather become docile and distracted than face the possibility that they may be murdered by an overwhelming force.

BUT WHO CARES WHAT I THINK.

MY IP IS SHADOWBANNED FROM HN.

Re: Slaughterbots: Stop Autonomous Weapons [video]

#34

Post by mtgx »

hitekker wrote: post #14

Terrifying and fascinating, as all good wake-up calls should be. In the future, miniature exploding drones could indeed autonomously, distinguish between cranium and body, plot a flight route and divebomb at their victim. But, I don't think these skull-crackers will be fully autonomous, even with significant advances and development. Given the chance of collateral damage and the "fuzziness" of algorithms, the kill co…

I think it's naive to think their primary focus will be collateral damage. Is that really the focus in any war at all?

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/11/16/16666628/iraq-nyt-casua...

And that's just the targeting of the drones themselves. But how accurate is the intelligence targeting? Post-Snowden we found out that they were killing people mainly based on what SIM card the targets carried with them.

Plus, they consider any male that is killed and above 16 years old as a terrorist. It's harder not to be "accurate" when that's your definition of a target...

Also, you're forgetting one aspect of this. The cheaper the tech becomes, the easier it will be used. Just like we now kill 100x more people with drone strikes that we did with airstrikes, in the future we may be kill 100-1,000x more people with automated drones, because it's so much easier to "get rid of the baddies".

Do you actually think they'll hire 100x more people to operate those machines and "have final say"? Yeah, no way that's how they'll think about it - unless we make them think differently about it and not to allow the automated kill machines to ever be built/sent.

I mean, given the type of politicians the U.S. government tends to have these days, which option do you think they'll choose? A 10-year dragged out war against a group like ISIS, or "just sending 10,000 automated drones" into multiple "hot areas" and "finish the job within a month"?

Can you not see how their logic would go, and that we'll actually need a lot of people to oppose that type of thinking to ensure it will not happen? But will there be a lot of people to ensure that doesn't happen, if say a terrorist group takes out the White House? Or will everyone think "those 100,000 people all killed automatically by the drones deserved it for destroying our White House!!".

Heck, Trump already asked the military "for the biggest bomb they can send" - a bomb that was built but never used before - and it wasn't even a situation of the US being under huge immediate threat at the time. It was mainly done for PR purposes for Trump to show how macho he is and how he "gets things done." The worst part about it is that the media seemed gleeful about it, rather than condemning him.

I think it would be best to ensure the machines are not built in the first place. There are too many trigger-happy people that would send such drones out.

Re: Slaughterbots: Stop Autonomous Weapons [video]

#37

Post by speedplane »

neuro_imager wrote: post #3

Unfortunately I don't see a way this can be avoided.There has never been a weapon humanity imagined, designed, and built that it has not used. AI will be no different. A ban would be impossible to implement. What exactly would you ban? AI? Drones? facial recognition? Once you have a certain level of capability in these technologies, weaponising these things is the easy part.

> Unfortunately I don't see a way this can be avoided.There has never been a weapon humanity imagined, designed, and built that it has not used. AI will be no different.

Agreed history does not bode well, but it is certainly possible. Communication, treaties, non-violent methods of solving disputes can together prevent this nightmare scenario. Just because it isn't easy doesn't mean we should all throw up our hands and say it's impossible.

Post reply on HN