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

US Army Studying Replacing Thousands of Grunts with Robots

defensenews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 52 posts

Re: US Army Studying Replacing Thousands of Grunts with Robots

#41

Post by ballard »

georgemcbay wrote: post #20
downer83 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The funny thing about policy wonks is that they believe policy, diplomacy and international law are the only way things get resolved, even amidst the state of nature that persists between international actors. The reason stock markets have black swans is because legal transactions can never account for illegal activity. Sure, you can buy replacement insurance against theft, but you cannot actually build theft into an…

"Consider the question: How interested are you in being arrested and imprisoned by a robotic civilian police officer?" Basically exactly the same as I'm interested in being arrested and imprisoned by a meat-cop. And the robocop might win just based on the fact that he's less likely to have a "respect mah authoritai" chip on his shoulder that results in me being tazed or shot for no good reason.

Don't get caught and you won't be arrested. Further, you can probably spot weaknesses in a machine that can't construct new strategies outside its programming or has to be controlled remotely.

Re: US Army Studying Replacing Thousands of Grunts with Robots

#42

Post by georgemcbay »

downer83 wrote: post #28
georgemcbay wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Consider the question: How interested are you in being arrested and imprisoned by a robotic civilian police officer?" Basically exactly the same as I'm interested in being arrested and imprisoned by a meat-cop. And the robocop might win just based on the fact that he's less likely to have a "respect mah authoritai" chip on his shoulder that results in me being tazed or shot for no good reason.

When your accusers are provided the luxury of never having to face you, how confident are you that "the law" will be carried out fairly, and that the "laws" themselves will not be arbitrary? Just as confident as you are now of the law? This is about power differential. Imbalances of power contribute to instability. The kinds of power discussed in this equation are vast, and not to be trifled with. Errors made with th…

"Just as confident as you are now of the law?"

Well, yes. But that's primarily because I am not currently confident in the law.

Re: US Army Studying Replacing Thousands of Grunts with Robots

#43

Post by ballard »

krapp wrote: post #21
downer83 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The funny thing about policy wonks is that they believe policy, diplomacy and international law are the only way things get resolved, even amidst the state of nature that persists between international actors. The reason stock markets have black swans is because legal transactions can never account for illegal activity. Sure, you can buy replacement insurance against theft, but you cannot actually build theft into an…

The devil's advocacy response would be that because robots lack the capacity for malice, racism or cruelty, they can be trusted to bring to bear the force of law more so than human cops. Also that robot soldiers, lacking fear or the clouded judgement that comes from fatigue or moral conflict, and having enhanced sensory and physical capabilities, would cause less collateral damage than human troops. This is a similar…

The theory of evolution should encompass techniques, politics and non-organic tools as part of more a capable existence that is bigger than anthropocentrism and organicentrism. That the rifle and the soldier are a machine together, just as a rifle on wheels. How the rifle got there doesn't matter but what does matter is the decision process of whether it fires or not. Right now, the ROE for USM legally requires an officer to approve any kill order made remotely (drone strike). That might not always be the case going forward, especially for secret wars as well as adversaries that just want any kind of revenge.

Re: US Army Studying Replacing Thousands of Grunts with Robots

#44

Post by chaostheory »

downer83 wrote: post #12
ChuckMcM wrote: post #11

Its not surprising, having a quadcopter type drone with a video link back to the squad for doing down range recon is a huge force multiplier. The challenge of course is batteries. Soldiers are powered by eating organics, potentially very light weight organics rehydrated with locally available water. They can carry several days worth of rations and be operationally effective for nearly 24/7 of those days. There is no…

Yeah, but this puts us closer than ever to the brink of a nuclear exchange. For the purposes of a thought experiment, consider the false dichotomy of "America" and "NotAmerica" as two hypothetical opposing forces, where America has nukes and killer robots and NotAmerica has only nukes. If you find yourself living in NotAmerica, your motivation to pre-emptively nuke America, simply to avoid the threat of a horrific de…

This doesn't make any sense. When you two adversaries with global ballistic nuclear weapons, you're not going to have a winner even if one side has "killer robots", unless those robots have the ability to stop what happens when the opposing side pushes the big red button. Right now they don't.

Re: US Army Studying Replacing Thousands of Grunts with Robots

#45

Post by ballard »

chaostheory wrote: post #44
downer83 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but this puts us closer than ever to the brink of a nuclear exchange. For the purposes of a thought experiment, consider the false dichotomy of "America" and "NotAmerica" as two hypothetical opposing forces, where America has nukes and killer robots and NotAmerica has only nukes. If you find yourself living in NotAmerica, your motivation to pre-emptively nuke America, simply to avoid the threat of a horrific de…

This doesn't make any sense. When you two adversaries with global ballistic nuclear weapons, you're not going to have a winner even if one side has "killer robots", unless those robots have the ability to stop what happens when the opposing side pushes the big red button. Right now they don't.

Foreign Policy should be buzzing about how to first defend against quadrocopters strapped with an IED. The moment the first one happens, there will be dozens more. And that's just getting warmed up for emergent "asymmetric" threats. (Banning and licensure won't make it go away.)

Re: US Army Studying Replacing Thousands of Grunts with Robots

#46

Post by krapp »

ballard wrote: post #45
chaostheory wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't make any sense. When you two adversaries with global ballistic nuclear weapons, you're not going to have a winner even if one side has "killer robots", unless those robots have the ability to stop what happens when the opposing side pushes the big red button. Right now they don't.

Foreign Policy should be buzzing about how to first defend against quadrocopters strapped with an IED. The moment the first one happens, there will be dozens more. And that's just getting warmed up for emergent "asymmetric" threats. (Banning and licensure won't make it go away.)

Wouldn't those be much easier to detect and defend against than your standard IED?

Re: US Army Studying Replacing Thousands of Grunts with Robots

#47

Post by PavlovsCat »

krapp wrote: post #29
eropple wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fewer humans and more survivability on one, predominantly aggressive, side. I don't think that's necessarily a plus.

It is if you're on the side with the robots.

Please tell me you were being sarcastic :(

What's the upside of being "on the side" of an entity of even less hesitation of engaging in aggressive warfare? That's like saying making it easier to beat up kids and take their lunch money is a plus, as long as you're the one doing it - and that's the mildest example I could think of, to keep this as nice and friendly as possible.

How long will it take until other major and minor powers have them, too? Then that advantage shrinks or even disappears, yet the robots remain. How long until they get turned on citizens? What leg would you have to stand on, morally, if you justify wars of aggression by (thinking you're) profiting from them? If it was profitable to crush dissent with robots, none.

This idea of "sides" is very flawed, too. Are US citizens on the side of those who lead them into wars, or do these wars more and more mean profit to a very small subset to them, and huge costs to the rest? Here's a thought, if you post on HN, you're by definition not part of the group who would stand to gain by such things. HN may represent a elite in comparison with other groups, but in comparison with actual elites it still represents peons.

Last, but not least: what if you're "on the side of humans", and don't buy into the whole nationality stuff in the first place?

Re: US Army Studying Replacing Thousands of Grunts with Robots

#48

Post by downer83 »

georgemcbay wrote: post #42
downer83 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When your accusers are provided the luxury of never having to face you, how confident are you that "the law" will be carried out fairly, and that the "laws" themselves will not be arbitrary? Just as confident as you are now of the law? This is about power differential. Imbalances of power contribute to instability. The kinds of power discussed in this equation are vast, and not to be trifled with. Errors made with th…

"Just as confident as you are now of the law?" Well, yes. But that's primarily because I am not currently confident in the law.

Which is worse?

A robotic crime wave, or a human crime wave?

A robotic miscarriage of justice, or a human miscarriage of justice?

I think, in both situations, the two are not equivalent, and the robotic version is not only worse, but carries the potential of total devastation. But maybe I'm chicken little.

Re: US Army Studying Replacing Thousands of Grunts with Robots

#49

Post by krapp »

PavlovsCat wrote: post #47
krapp wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is if you're on the side with the robots.

Please tell me you were being sarcastic :( What's the upside of being "on the side" of an entity of even less hesitation of engaging in aggressive warfare? That's like saying making it easier to beat up kids and take their lunch money is a plus, as long as you're the one doing it - and that's the mildest example I could think of, to keep this as nice and friendly as possible. How long will it take until other major a…

I was being sarcastic. However your points are worth stirring the pot over.

>What's the upside of being "on the side" of an entity of even less hesitation of engaging in aggressive warfare?

It would be preferable not to engage in aggressive warfare. But it's also preferable not to be the one who ends up dead from it.

>That's like saying making it easier to beat up kids and take their lunch money is a plus, as long as you're the one doing it - and that's the mildest example I could think of, to keep this as nice and friendly as possible.

You're correct. That's exactly what I think it's like. It's not fair and it's not just.

>This idea of "sides" is very flawed, too. Are US citizens on the side of those who lead them into wars, or do these wars more and more mean profit to a very small subset to them, and huge costs to the rest?

Americans are by no means the only militaristic nationalists around. And this is a complex question. But it's worth pointing out that those two things are not mutually exclusive.

>what if you're "on the side of humans", and don't buy into the whole nationality stuff in the first place?

If you're born into a nation, and into the systems which brought it into being, and you derive benefits from it - food, education, language, culture - then I believe you are to a degree a paricipant in or benefactor of the crimes which made those benefits possible. They were done on your behalf whether you like it or not. "Gain" from warfare can be a subtle thing, and can be doled out across generations, even millennia.

I think you can put yourself beyond nationalism if you wish, and doing so is understandable in a post-Internet age. But I don't believe that puts you above it. You are a product of the industries of slavery, barbarism, greed and genocide, as am I, as is every human being. Before nations, people slaughtered one another in the name of their tribe, or their clan, or their family, or gods. We are all of us standing atop a pile of bones simply by virtue of birth... it's just that some piles are bigger than others.

Re: US Army Studying Replacing Thousands of Grunts with Robots

#50

Post by chaostheory »

ballard wrote: post #45
chaostheory wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't make any sense. When you two adversaries with global ballistic nuclear weapons, you're not going to have a winner even if one side has "killer robots", unless those robots have the ability to stop what happens when the opposing side pushes the big red button. Right now they don't.

Foreign Policy should be buzzing about how to first defend against quadrocopters strapped with an IED. The moment the first one happens, there will be dozens more. And that's just getting warmed up for emergent "asymmetric" threats. (Banning and licensure won't make it go away.)

I'm sure the military is already concerned about this, but I don't see why foreign policy would be buzzing about a threat that won't come from a nation state.
Post reply on HN