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

101–110 of 186 posts

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#101

Post by jayd16 »

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…

I kind of doubt drone vs drone will be all that effective. Have anti-missile systems ever been all that effective?

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#102

Post by superbaconman »

Jtsummers wrote: post #47
superbaconman wrote: post #25

Is this the official position of ieee? It's seems both unrealistic and unconstitutional (at least within the US).

It's a piece in IEEE Spectrum, lots of people submit articles there. With respect to unconstitutionality, really? Are you also able to acquire and keep on your property a functioning ICBM or nuclear bomb? Arms controls exist in the US despite the 2nd amendment.

Considering that the technology to build such drones is so widely available there's no reason why small arm drones wouldn't be protected under the 2nd amendment. Drones with bombs are a different story, but will be developed regardless of any international agreement (just like bio weapons).

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#103

Post by marcus_holmes »

petermcneeley wrote: post #68
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…

This analysis is slightly off because WWI and WWII were great powers fighting each other. If the great powers were ever to directly fight this would still be nuclear war. Nothing about "swarming bots" has significantly changed this domain. Where bots and swarm bots would be used is likely in asymmetric warfare. "Aircraft carriers will be replaced with cheap drone swarm carriers" I would argue that Aircraft carriers a…

> I would argue that Aircraft carriers are the size and cost due to large munitions and maintenance constraints.

Pretty sure runways are the reason. VTOL aircraft are too expensive to operate. Helicopters aren't good at attacking ships. Conventional aircraft need a runway: aircraft carriers have to be that big.

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#104

Post by Grimm665 »

jayd16 wrote: post #101
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…

I kind of doubt drone vs drone will be all that effective. Have anti-missile systems ever been all that effective?

Simulation of course, but I'll submit this video for your consideration:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1K8LGTwy6Zw

To sum up the conclusion of the several-hour video series: the Aegis Combat System is essentially impenetrable to all but the most overwhelming of forces.

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#105

Post by caseysoftware »

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…

This is a rough explanation of the "generations of warfare" where our tactics are defined by the tools and weapons we have available. Unfortunately, we (humans, not just the US) tend to then treat those as the "right" tactics even as the underlying tools and weapons change so we're always fighting the last war.

Cheap, autonomous, easily-deployed tools - weapons drones, sensors, etc - are a huge change that some are adapting to leverage but few have adapted to respond to.

Which is scary considering the "generations of warfare" model where in fourth generation warfare, the boundary between civilian and combatant is blurred..

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#106

Post by sandworm101 »

stickfigure wrote: post #98
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…

> those incredibly expensive fighter planes are useless. Aircraft carriers will be replaced I'm not fully convinced. The advantage of drones is that they are relatively cheap. That automatically comes with significant range and speed limitations; after all, as someone else mentioned, we already have long-range semi-autonomous drones called missiles. They aren't cheap. Naval engagements, not to mention aircraft engage…

>> And I'm sure ships will be upgraded with defenses (if they haven't already).

They already have CIWS (and a bunch of other stuff) to shoot down incoming supersonic and maneuvering anti-ship missiles. Any drone slower or less difficult to hit than those missiles stands little chance. Drones can extend the eye and ears of a ship but they are not going to be killing ships themselves anytime soon.

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#107

Post by CountDrewku »

SonicScrub wrote: post #81
CountDrewku wrote: post #22

They seem to be only presenting the negative aspects of "slaughterbots". Could they not potentially be better than human controlled devices since they should be able to more accurately target things and create less collateral damage? Of course, there's always the doomsday terminator scenario where they go haywire and decide to start targeting all humans....

It's worth noting that this line of reasoning has been used to justify the invention of machines that ended up causing many more deaths than before. Richard Gatling was inspired to invent the Gatling gun as a way to reduce the number of deaths by combat. His logic was that if could replace the lines of musket-wielding infantry with a small team that could fire just as many rounds, the number of soldiers an army would…

Yes I'm just playing devil's advocate. My initial response is that they should be banned but like most things someone will continue creating them. Do we really think China cares whether there's a ban?

Typically the only thing that stops WMD type weapons (not sure if slaughterbots fall into this category) is the enemy having them as well. Assured mutual destruction seems to be the only viable option.

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#108

Post by [deleted] »

stickfigure wrote: post #98
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…

> those incredibly expensive fighter planes are useless. Aircraft carriers will be replaced I'm not fully convinced. The advantage of drones is that they are relatively cheap. That automatically comes with significant range and speed limitations; after all, as someone else mentioned, we already have long-range semi-autonomous drones called missiles. They aren't cheap. Naval engagements, not to mention aircraft engage…

[deleted]

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#109

Post by marcus_holmes »

epicureanideal wrote: post #94
petermcneeley wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This analysis is slightly off because WWI and WWII were great powers fighting each other. If the great powers were ever to directly fight this would still be nuclear war. Nothing about "swarming bots" has significantly changed this domain. Where bots and swarm bots would be used is likely in asymmetric warfare. "Aircraft carriers will be replaced with cheap drone swarm carriers" I would argue that Aircraft carriers a…

Swarm bots would also be useless against tanks or carriers. Too small to carry enough explosives to do much. As the drone becomes big enough to do more it approaches the size of a missile, which we already have.

how much of a missile's weight is payload, and how much is "missile"? I don't know enough about either to be able to say for certainty, but it's probable that the ratio of payload:delivery is different for drones, and possibly better.

also, drones can do stupid things like fly underneath tanks, or land on them and then place a charge right up against the armour (or a vision slit, etc). Or even place a charge, back off, detonate it, then place a second charge on the same spot and detonate that. And of course a swarm can see multiple drones attack exactly the same spot on a tank's armour.

also, they don't need to destroy the tank. They just need to mess with it enough that it needs repair.

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#110

Post by stickfigure »

dgan wrote: post #44
nabla9 wrote: post #38

I don't fully understand how there is real difference? If you give a swarm of drones a kill zone and time limit, then they try them to kill every human in the area, how is that so different from MLRS salvo? Cruise missiles are already slaughterbots. You just give them location and they kill everyone in that location.

Location is wrong argument. The article specifically points out that those drones were said to follow retreating fighters, and keep shooting un-discriminately

Retreating fighters are still combatants. Surrendering fighters would be a different matter.
Post reply on HN