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

Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 186 posts

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#11

Post by marcus_holmes »

This feels like the same thing that happened with tanks. The end of WW1 saw tanks deployed effectively. WW2 was then fought using entirely new tactics and strategies enabled by tanks (not least "blitzkrieg").

Britain and France, notably, hadn't really worked out how to use them effectively and so were left fighting the last war, horribly disadvantaged until they worked out how to catch up (though air power being developed at the same time also had an influence).

So now we have drones, and all those incredibly expensive fighter planes are useless. Aircraft carriers will be replaced with cheap drone swarm carriers, so naval strategy will need to change. Anti-tank drone swarms will make conventional armour more or less ineffective. And so on.

The good news is that there will be anti-drone swarms too. And so we'll end up fighting battles mostly by destroying drones instead of people. Once you've knocked out all the enemy drones, they'll surrender because humans can't fight drones.

Interesting times.

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#12

Post by falcolas »

5560675260 wrote: post #7

I, for one, welcome our murderbot overlords. If we can't stop using drones to kill people, we should at least try to reduce collateral damage. With some advancements autonomous drones could be more precise and reliable than human operated ones, meaning that as an outcome fewer weddings will get blown up.

> With some advancements autonomous drones could be more precise and reliable than human operated ones

This is speculation at best, outright wrong at worst. Prove they're better than humans before employing them.

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#13

Post by gjulianm »

5560675260 wrote: post #7

I, for one, welcome our murderbot overlords. If we can't stop using drones to kill people, we should at least try to reduce collateral damage. With some advancements autonomous drones could be more precise and reliable than human operated ones, meaning that as an outcome fewer weddings will get blown up.

A 90% reduction in collateral damage is useless if the availability of drones means there are 10x the attacks, for example.

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#15

Post by falcolas »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #11

This feels like the same thing that happened with tanks. The end of WW1 saw tanks deployed effectively. WW2 was then fought using entirely new tactics and strategies enabled by tanks (not least "blitzkrieg"). Britain and France, notably, hadn't really worked out how to use them effectively and so were left fighting the last war, horribly disadvantaged until they worked out how to catch up (though air power being deve…

Nah. Humans can't fight cruise missiles either, yet it hasn't changed to where one side gives up when the other has cruise missiles.

Humans aren't that logical.

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#16

Post by crumbshot »

Not only should there should be no autonomous drones, the non-autonomous remote controller hardware should be wired up such that if they are shot out of the sky, this kills the human operator and anyone sitting nearby.

This would be much fairer than the current system of gamified point-and-click murder.

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#17

Post by marcus_holmes »

falcolas wrote: post #15
marcus_holmes wrote: post #11

This feels like the same thing that happened with tanks. The end of WW1 saw tanks deployed effectively. WW2 was then fought using entirely new tactics and strategies enabled by tanks (not least "blitzkrieg"). Britain and France, notably, hadn't really worked out how to use them effectively and so were left fighting the last war, horribly disadvantaged until they worked out how to catch up (though air power being deve…

Nah. Humans can't fight cruise missiles either, yet it hasn't changed to where one side gives up when the other has cruise missiles. Humans aren't that logical.

I thought Patriot and all those Isreali firework shows were anti-missile defences?

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#18

Post by Matticus_Rex »

StavrosK wrote: post #9
5560675260 wrote: post #7

I, for one, welcome our murderbot overlords. If we can't stop using drones to kill people, we should at least try to reduce collateral damage. With some advancements autonomous drones could be more precise and reliable than human operated ones, meaning that as an outcome fewer weddings will get blown up.

And if fewer weddings get blown up, we'll use them more and more to kill people. I wonder whether the absolute number of killings will go up or down this way.

Wait, why will we use them more and more to kill people if fewer weddings get blown up? I'm not seeing the causal link.

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#20

Post by gpm »

Autonomous weapons should be embraced, otherwise less scrupulous people will embrace them, and they will win. Non-autonomous weapons will simply not be able to compete long term.

Actually we wouldn't even be able to compete today, things like missiles are already autonomous, and if they weren't we would simply be unable to compete in any battlefield where radio was jammed, and it would give a large force multiplier to adversaries even in battle fields where radio is not jammed.

Post reply on HN