41–50 of 83 posts
what I find to be the hardest part of this discussion is that the people who are most righteous and opinionated about technology like this aren’t the same people whose sons and daughters would be in the cockpits or on the battlefields as the alternative.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please define what you mean by righteous and opiniated. You seem to have a very precise idea of what they would be saying, why not develop that idea here so it can be discussed instead of weirdly veiled ?
Look at every reply here. It jumps to a conclusion that an unmanned vehicle is making decisions about who dies and thus must be bad. It overlooks the fact that most of us enjoy the stability and protection of militaries that are real people we ask to risk their lives to fly these planes.
By way of analogy, most people who enjoy the protection of the military are opposed to the use of chemical or biological weapons. They recognize that how people fight is also important.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> this is something which is so obviously bad You’d prefer we be shooting down people instead of robots downing robots? Insurgents don’t field fighters.
The amount of shooting is influenced by circumstances. That is to say, if one side doesn't have to risk people dying, then they may be more willing to start a war. For a given amount of shooting, the number of civilian casualties is not necessarily constant. It's possible that AI may be more prone to targeting civilians or makes it easier to get away politically with killing civilians. Not all shooting is equally eff…
The people were fungible. Mercenaries show that. Soldiers were and remain instruments for production to wield its power through.
The World Wars shocked us because they showed what war between technologically-advanced, industrial states looks like. (We didn’t get horrified by the Holocaust until well afterwards.) There are a variety of reasons we haven’t seen WWIII, chief among them nukes, but what it hasn’t been is aversion to loss of soldiers’ lives. (See: Russia.) As a result, conventional war between industrialised states remains a risk. These technologies—which are principally useful against another state actor and not civilians—reduce the frequency at which that warfare destroys lives versus capital.
(One could argue this increases the chances of war by industrial states against static-army enemies or non-states. But an F-16 flying over Afghanistan is already practically invulnerable.)
There's an inflection point where technology accrues too much power to a ruling class, such that no amount of unrest or revolution is able reset the social order. I believe China has already passed this point. Their culture and individual behavior is tightly controlled (e.g., you can't use public bathrooms if your social score is too low). AI may be the catalyst for western countries.
"(e.g., you can't use public bathrooms if your social score is too low)" do you have a source on this? i have used dozens of public bathrooms in china and i've never seen any of them gated off for specific people for any reason or anyone checking anything before you go inside
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please define what you mean by righteous and opiniated. You seem to have a very precise idea of what they would be saying, why not develop that idea here so it can be discussed instead of weirdly veiled ?
Look at every reply here. It jumps to a conclusion that an unmanned vehicle is making decisions about who dies and thus must be bad. It overlooks the fact that most of us enjoy the stability and protection of militaries that are real people we ask to risk their lives to fly these planes.
But, if I may, I'd like to challenge your premise somewhat as well. Which is that militaries exist fundamentally to provide "stability and protection".
To be clear, yes militaries are a necessary evil, but they are evil, not good. They exist "because the other guy has one", but then because we have one, we need to use it.
With a few exceptions (ww1, ww2, kuwait) US military adventures have been the problem, not the solution.
The last attack on US soil (Pearl Harbour) was close to 100 years ago. Yet the US military budget is 5 times everyone else combined.
So, I'd argue, the US military does not exist to provide "stability and protection (to US citizens)." It exists as a way of projecting US policy, both as a threat, and occasionally in practice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Look at every reply here. It jumps to a conclusion that an unmanned vehicle is making decisions about who dies and thus must be bad. It overlooks the fact that most of us enjoy the stability and protection of militaries that are real people we ask to risk their lives to fly these planes.
Those two statements don't strike me as contradictory. It's entirely possible that someone could enjoy the protection of the military and feel that it is too dangerous for combat to be fought by AI. By way of analogy, most people who enjoy the protection of the military are opposed to the use of chemical or biological weapons. They recognize that how people fight is also important.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> this is something which is so obviously bad You’d prefer we be shooting down people instead of robots downing robots? Insurgents don’t field fighters.
The amount of shooting is influenced by circumstances. That is to say, if one side doesn't have to risk people dying, then they may be more willing to start a war. For a given amount of shooting, the number of civilian casualties is not necessarily constant. It's possible that AI may be more prone to targeting civilians or makes it easier to get away politically with killing civilians. Not all shooting is equally eff…
We already have this with ranged weaponry and autocrats indifferent to the liquidation of fresh troops.
> the number of civilian casualties is not necessarily constant
Civilians aren’t dogfighting. I’m with you for ground-based robots, or anti-personnel drones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those two statements don't strike me as contradictory. It's entirely possible that someone could enjoy the protection of the military and feel that it is too dangerous for combat to be fought by AI. By way of analogy, most people who enjoy the protection of the military are opposed to the use of chemical or biological weapons. They recognize that how people fight is also important.
I don’t disagree with that statement, but isn’t it dissonant for there to be no discussion of how the audience here seems to ignore the topic of war when it’s fought in our names by real people, but holds ourselves to such high minded ideals when it’s fought by machines?