Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned • Hacker News Board

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#91

Post by darig » Wed, Jun 16, 2021, 3:42 PM UTC

rajin444 wrote: post #32

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.

> Humans aren't that logical. I think they're perfectly logical. Superior force (in the context being discussed) makes you better at war, but not ruling. Advances in military tech will probably reduce the overall bodycount of wars, but they don't solve the insurgency problem.

Of course advances in military tech don't solve the insurgency problem... they create and nurture the insurgency problem.

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#92

Post by epicureanideal » Wed, Jun 16, 2021, 3:44 PM UTC

AlexandrB wrote: post #29

marcus_holmes wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Cruise missiles are expensive. In theory a million person guerrilla army that stays somewhat spread out can be too expensive to use cruise missiles against effectively. But small, cheap drones…

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#93

Post by hn8788 » Wed, Jun 16, 2021, 3:45 PM UTC

stfp wrote: post #73

some_random wrote: post #41

There's an interesting similarity between autonomous weapon systems and ransomware discussions. Both have just come to the attention of the mainstream audience (or audiences outside their usual niche) and discussion in those spaces is about where it was 5 years ago. Also I'd really expect HN of all places to understand why banning what is basically computer vision based targeting systems is absurd.

Just like with chemical weapons, banning them makes total sense to avoid overwhelming mass production and ubiquitous use. You'll still see them used in targeted assassinations and some countries will have illegal military stockpiles, but that's very different from these things being treated like regular guns/ammo, being commercially available or legal to build.

Chemical weapons are banned because they kill indiscriminately, and it causes undue suffering compared to conventional weapons, not because you can mass produce them. Drones wouldn't have either of those issues.

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#94

Post by epicureanideal » Wed, Jun 16, 2021, 3:46 PM UTC

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…

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.

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#95

Post by epicureanideal » Wed, Jun 16, 2021, 3:49 PM UTC

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, they'll surrender because humans can't fight drones.

Or will lead to blending in with civilians, more advanced camouflage, or “hugging the enemy” tactics (staying close enough that they risk harming their own people). Or more terrorism rather than open warfare.

It might be that with these killer drones, we will look back on WW2 style armies in the field as equivalent to 18th century musketeers lining up and firing volleys at each other in bright colored shirts.

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#96

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jun 16, 2021, 3:52 PM UTC

tclancy wrote: post #84

credit_guy wrote: post #51

How silly. How can such a ban be enforced? Will Al Qaeda and ISIS sign the treaty? Will Assad sign it? Will he respect it any more than he respected the ban on chemical weapons?

How about a change to how we choose to live as a world and make them illegal to build, enforce those laws strictly, etc. The fact we live in a world where arms is a hyper-profitable amoral (at best) industry doesn't mean we should or have to. >‘It seems to be easier for us today to imagine the thoroughgoing deterioration of the earth and of nature than the breakdown of late capitalism; perhaps that is due to some wea…

[deleted]

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#97

Post by jcims » Wed, Jun 16, 2021, 3:53 PM UTC

barbazoo wrote: post #52

jcims wrote: post #19

Product page for the UAV in question: https://www.stm.com.tr/en/kargu-autonomous-tactical-multi-ro...

Does anyone know what "Indigenous National Embedded Hardware and Software" means? Domestically developed maybe?

You could ask them on twitter lol - https://twitter.com/STMDefence

Surreal.

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#98

Post by stickfigure » Wed, Jun 16, 2021, 3:58 PM UTC

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 engagements, happen at distances that are just not in the reach of cheap drones. Someone might get a surprise shot at an aircraft carrier in peacetime, but probably not while alert on the open sea. And I'm sure ships will be upgraded with defenses (if they haven't already).

Tanks and infantry, that's a more interesting problem.

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#99

Post by stickfigure » Wed, Jun 16, 2021, 4:07 PM UTC

nomoreplease wrote: post #70

ReptileMan wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This isn’t realistic 1. This won’t be your average 2. Even if it was it could be hundreds of them 3. The military are developing large aircraft that function as essentially fighter aircraft that can destroy your tiny gun battery from 50-100 km away

This makes no sense. If we're talking about an opponent that can field fighter aircraft and missiles that can destroy anti-drone defenses at 50-100km away, they could just use those missiles instead of drones to destroy the "real" target.

Seems to me the likely scenario is some sort of cheap projectile automatic weapon mounted on a vehicle. It doesn't take much to take down a drone and they move incredibly slowly compared to "real" missiles. Sure, 22LR, why not.

Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned

#100

Post by todd8 » Wed, Jun 16, 2021, 4:08 PM UTC

Banning autonomous weapons is a good idea, but history indicates that the bad guys might very well continue to develop them while claiming that they are not. For example, see the biological weapons program pursued by the former Soviet Union in secret despite being signatories of the international ban on biological weapons[1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_biological_weapons_prog...