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

The future of warfare

salon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 29 posts

Re: The future of warfare

#4

Post by jacquesm »

Mithaldu wrote: post #3

> sentient robots Stopped reading there. There may be some kernel of truth in there, but trying to get it from a writer with literally zero integrity is pointless.

That appears to be a quote from a UN conference.

Besides that, the article makes a couple of pretty good points. If you label every writer that ever made an error in their writings (or quotations) as having 'literally zero integrity' and then you stop reading because further consumption is pointless you'll throw out a lot of good with the bad.

For instance, I wasn't aware of the Russian Robotic Warfare program mentioned in the link gleaned from the article.

Re: The future of warfare

#5

Post by Mithaldu »

jacquesm wrote: post #4
Mithaldu wrote: post #3

> sentient robots Stopped reading there. There may be some kernel of truth in there, but trying to get it from a writer with literally zero integrity is pointless.

That appears to be a quote from a UN conference. Besides that, the article makes a couple of pretty good points. If you label every writer that ever made an error in their writings (or quotations) as having 'literally zero integrity' and then you stop reading because further consumption is pointless you'll throw out a lot of good with the bad. For instance, I wasn't aware of the Russian Robotic Warfare program mentio…

It is not a quote. In fact it is almost the opposite. It is a sentence fragment the author tagged to the end of an actual quote; the result being, as you demonstrate, that there will be some people who believe that was actually discussed.

It is an embellishment which nobody who had done any diligent research on the matter could have come up with.

Thus the entirety of the article is suspect, and the flowery writing style does not help in extracting what might be the actual facts.

Re: The future of warfare

#6

Post by beloch »

Eventually, two forces with these military golems will turn them on each other, either in a bid for supremacy or simply to evaluate their effectiveness and inform the designers of the next generation of golems. What kind of collateral damage will result from these automated clashes? Will both sides agree to keep their golems confined to a predetermined and uninhabited area of conflict, or will golem battles spill over into populated areas? Will weapons currently considered off limits for use against humans (e.g. tactical nukes, cluster bombs, and landmines) become palatable for use against golems? Will invading golems use civilians and infrastructure as cover? How will defending golems respond to this, or even determine that it has happened?

If a computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any other invention with the possible exceptions of handguns and tequila, why give a computer an automatic rifle and a rocket launcher?

Re: The future of warfare

#7

Post by CapitalistCartr »

beloch wrote: post #6

Eventually, two forces with these military golems will turn them on each other, either in a bid for supremacy or simply to evaluate their effectiveness and inform the designers of the next generation of golems. What kind of collateral damage will result from these automated clashes? Will both sides agree to keep their golems confined to a predetermined and uninhabited area of conflict, or will golem battles spill ove…

Sentient robots aren't necessary, nor the greatest danger. That is the danger that the US Congress can get into a war that doesn't cause body bags to come home to Dover, Delaware. The USA has a military comparable to the rest of the World combined. We have used that military, directly and indirectly, Worldwide to abuse our position. The only constraint for the past two decades has been said body bags. Given the use of drones and non-sentient robots, that one limit to US Federal power could evaporate soon, perhaps by 2020.

Re: The future of warfare

#8

Post by oldmanjay »

Mithaldu wrote: post #3

> sentient robots Stopped reading there. There may be some kernel of truth in there, but trying to get it from a writer with literally zero integrity is pointless.

Well they led the article with a picture of a terminator. You pretty much have to expect an agenda with a cultural cue like that.
Post reply on HN