Coriolanus
Banned
youre asking why didn't america defeat the country that was being backed by both china and the soviet union at the time?
One wonders indeed.
fwiw, you're comparing apples and oranges. killbots will not fight like humans.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Elon Musk leads 116 experts calling for outright ban of killer robots
- Thread starter Poetic.Injustice
- Start date
youre asking why didn't america defeat the country that was being backed by both china and the soviet union at the time?
One wonders indeed.
fwiw, you're comparing apples and oranges. killbots will not fight like humans.
No where near the amount of outrage especially if it be construed as a job or economy booster, which it will.
Most did not protest Vietnam because of Agent Orange, they did because their sons and fathers were sent to possible death in a war they thought would be quick.
ZeroGravity
Member
Thankfully no one would ever be stupid enough to do what happened in Horizon. It went beyond simple killer robots and involved a number of factors that I couldn't suspend my disbelief enough to actually believe someone would come up with.AGITΩ;246581712 said:
JordanN
Banned
America spends more than every other country on earth on its military.
They haven't solved how to win a guerrilla war that wont inevitably lead to protests.
ironichaos
Member
It's frightening to think how these weapons could be used in the hands of a dictator (or wannabe dictator). Citizens would be at their mercy.
Coriolanus
Banned
and how does that relate to the playing field between big and small countries being equal?
Gnome Scat
Member
Good luck, the idea of war without humanity is a terrifying concept; it's bad enough as it is.
yanipheonu
Member
Oh for certain, no army is going to simply ignore the potential of drones with guns.
I do wonder if(when) the "robots fighting robots" future warfare will occur.
Chaos2Frozen
Member
In a fight with guerrillas Killer robots, Its to be assumed the whichever big country would deploy hunter killer robots.
The big country would not send in their own troops, and therefore would not receive the same backlash from prolong fighting. The main casualties would be from civilians caught in the cross fire.
The big country would not send in their own troops, and therefore would not receive the same backlash from prolong fighting. The main casualties would be from civilians caught in the cross fire.
JordanN
Banned
I find both points irrelevant, since the war wouldn't be dictated by which side was armed the most, but who could resist the invading one.
For an equal playing field, both robots would be of similar skill level and weaponry. No country would have to worry about an elite force mowing down an army of simple conscripts.
It would be up to the invading country to double their output in order to conquer the smaller country. But again, this is where I mention past guerrilla wars that ended up in the invading country forfeiting because they can't put up with fierce resistance.
Chaos2Frozen
Member
It's about the moral decisions. The idea is that robots would be more indiscriminate.
SolarPowered
Member
You can't stop the second renaissance from happening, Musk.
Sho_Nuff82
Member
That's shortsighted. Eventually, the side with depleted resources would lose, and then be killed/dominated by the other's killer bots.
It would remain decidedly unequal, unless you think poorer countries will be able to program, manufacture and deploy on the same level as the US, China, and Russia.
It would mean the end of conventional asymmetric warfare. Sneak attacks, IEDs, snipers, and suicide bombs wouldn't have the same psychological effect on drones. A larger army could simply wait you out by throwing endless drone chaff at you, and then send in the troops if you survived.
HawksWinStanley
Member
yanipheonu
Member
Not to mention, operating a drone instead of "manually" killing someone in person isn't exactly the protection it sounds like. Sure, you're not in the line of fire, but you still get fucked up and get PTSD.
edit: better article http://www.salon.com/2015/03/06/a_c...ilots_are_quitting_in_record_numbers_partner/
How'd you like to be personally responsible for killing over a thousand people via remote control? Lots of people, obviously, don't take it well at all.
JordanN
Banned
Lets pretend the war isn't in a vacuum.
Other countries would immediately take interest and either intervene themselves or support the potentially losing side.
Like when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Iraq was bigger but that didn't mean they were going to hold onto it forever. It immediately sparked the interest of the rest of the Middle East to intervene.
Now if another country was caught up in an invasion and the war went underground, don't you think the invading country would be put in a difficult spot when either foreign volunteers start popping up or neighboring countries begin to increase their own defense spending?
Meh. I kinda think killer robots are inevitable and probably more beneficial than awful. There's been plenty of sniper/terrorist situations in recent years where we've sent in huge fucking missiles when a tiny drone with a pistol could probably have done the same job with far less casualties.
You just accountability when they screw up. But fuck, we don't have any accountability when humans screw up right now, so its kinda no difference anyway. i.e. If Musk was risking jail time for any accidents caused by autopilot, I guarantee you you wouldn't have autopilot in your Tesla right now.
You just accountability when they screw up. But fuck, we don't have any accountability when humans screw up right now, so its kinda no difference anyway. i.e. If Musk was risking jail time for any accidents caused by autopilot, I guarantee you you wouldn't have autopilot in your Tesla right now.
More lethal and capable too. Bots wouldn't hesitate, wouldn't flinch, wouldn't miss. If you shoot a human's arm off, he's probably out of the fight. But if you shoot a robot's arm off, it's still shooting you.
So good luck defending yourself against something that is armored to conventional weapons, is stronger, faster, can jump higher (or take flight), sees you in the dark, sees you behind walls, sees you behind it, sees you a mile away, doesn't know fear or pain, has collective intelligence, and only knows what its programmed to do.
...and so of course it's going to happen...
Chaos2Frozen
Member
Hell, robots don't even need to be humanoid, they can look like anything so you don't even know what you're shooting at or where to shoot at.
Conciliator
Banned
yeah I mean no killer robots seems pretty agreeable.
Naked Snake
Member
afternoon delight
Member
Militaries everywhere: "Thank you for your suggestions. We assure you, we have top men working on the issue as we speak. Top men."
ClosingADoor
Member
Same goes for chemical and bio weapons at the moment. A ban is not meant to stop development, but from having those countries use them in their proxy wars.
Dude Abides
Banned
Doesn't he need them to get rid of those troublesome union organizers?
Bjoern the Smexy
Member
Well, this is awkwardly specific.
jufonuk
not tag worthy
You have to justify your existence to them over a two week grace period.
If rumours are to be believed
Sho_Nuff82
Member
In a hypothetical scenario where the US expands its drone strikes in the ME to include autonomous drones, or Israel started using unmanned bots to patrol the Gaza strip, or Russia deployed them in Crimea, who exactly steps in?
We still have nukes and a unheard of amount of conventional weapons capable of shredding a battlefield or dusting a city, changing the technology and risk wouldn't change that. We'd still be first to have them, have the best engineers, have the best manufacturing, and the best intel on the most effective places to deploy them.
The traditional NATO ally system is still in place. Starting a war with countries within that system is still an assured and complete destruction. Not every country is "lucky" enough to have superpowers step into your civil wars, like Syria and Yemen. Sometimes, you just get bombed into submission with a few meek hypeman jabs from Iran, like Lebanon.
LookAtMeGo
Member
We just need to speed up mechanical human augmentations so that we can take on the automatons when the time comes.
jufonuk
not tag worthy
Death by snu snu ... aww yeah
jufonuk
not tag worthy
Welp see the end of this thread:
http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=1421716&page=100000
That's just from a forum bot. Wait what if modbot manages to hack into the automated drones ??
http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=1421716&page=100000
That's just from a forum bot. Wait what if modbot manages to hack into the automated drones ??
You seriously aren't getting it or is refusing to get it despite multiple people explaining it to you.
The comparison to the Gulf War is a great example of how bad you are not getting it. You are talking about Iraq vs an American led coalition. There is no such thing as "equal playing fields" one side is going to have an advantage in some area and making war completely autonomous would largely benefit a larger, more economically powerful country.
There is no "same level of automation" because it is more likely the more wealthy country can afford better automation and gear. The larger side is going to field more and better automated devices and wreck the industry of the smaller nation.
Kain-Nosgoth
Member
is this a nier automata reference?
The key to victory is the element of surprise... SURPRISE!
When I see humans and progress in AI, sometimes, I wonder...
Edit: not to say I support the idea of killer robots... Just saying I'm not sure that a human in the heat of battle is in a good situation to freely think of its actions.
US Police will want one, I'm sure, to avoid having officers killed... At least, skin color is an easy clue for IA :/
CadetMahoney
Member
"Congratulations, you are being rescued."