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

21–30 of 186 posts

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#21

Post by jcims »

x86_64Ubuntu wrote: post #10
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.

But we can stop using drones to kill people, we choose not to. Instead, we see drones as a measure to lower the operational cost of killing people allowing us to kill people simply because they are there.

Some people need killed. Another way to look at this is improving the efficiency and accuracy of that process.

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#22

Post by CountDrewku »

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....

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#23

Post by ccsnags »

In the book “The Diamond Age” by Neal Stephenson there are mist-like swarms of nanobots that act as an immune system for regions against malicious nanobots.

I can picture there being something like this with drones.

There are problems to this. The major one being that, as mentioned by the posts on this thread, you have to develop the weapon to really know how to counter it.

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#27

Post by StavrosK »

Matticus_Rex wrote: post #18
StavrosK wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because blowing up weddings leads to dissatisfied voters, so politicians are less likely to do that very often.

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#28

Post by ReptileMan »

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…

And I will spend the weekend developing autoaiming gun battery that shoots the .22LR that needs to ground one of those birds and we are at stage 1.

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#29

Post by AlexandrB »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #17
falcolas wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The Venn diagram of people who have cruise missiles and people who have anti-missile defences is a circle. I think parent was talking about various guerrilla fighters/terrorists who have neither technology but still engage in conflicts with those that do.

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#30

Post by onion2k »

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…

Once you've knocked out all the enemy drones...

Then the enemy will build, or buy, more drones. Well-funded armies or terrorist groups don't lose because they run out of weapons.

Post reply on HN