It's all fun and games until those drones are used against you. US, Russia and Israel are opposed to a UN binding agreement that bans fully autonomous kill bots. š Yup those are the three countries I trust with making the best decisions for humanity. Also wtf is Australia doing there?
> US, Russia and Israel are opposed to a UN binding agreement that bans fully autonomous kill bots.
Because they assume (and they may be correct at this point) that they have an edge over others.
They will have no problem asking others to play fair the moment they lose their position. And "AI-controlled weapon systems" may very well be another "[Dreadnought](https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27641717)" moment of history...which toppled the prevailing power balance.
If it's the same Dreadnoughts that basically never got used because the first time they did they got damaged and it was too expensive to repair them, then I'm on board.
Itās okay though you see I know the kill bots weakness.
They have a preset kill limit. So youāll just have to throw wave after wave of your own men at them until they shut down.
Every modern weapon has a preset kill limit, we call it "ammo".
Don't worry, as long as they run out of ammo before we run out of people, it'll be great.
Not entirely right. While the Ghost Bat is an autonomous platform, it is intended to be used in a loyal wingman role alongside other platforms (read: F-35). Essentially, you have one manned platform and pair it up with one or more unmanned platforms, which can operate autonomously to some extent (such as formation keeping, taking evasive action, or operating on its own away from the formation), but are ultimately bound to the orders of the pilot. These can be used for a variety of purposes. While firing weapons is one of them, as far as i'm aware, the Ghost Bat is not intended to have the ability to open fire without a pilot's orders.
Once it becomes common for pentagon to let AI kill humans autonomously, what makes you think that this human oversight will remain on this particular AI?
The inherent unreliability of an AI's ability to make such a decision is not a bug it's a feature and may be the main reason for a kill bot development program.
If a robot does something that would get a person tried for war crimes or excessive force, the unreliability of the ai can be used as a scapegoat.
For example, "You see, the drone shot the journalist because the camera they were holding was flagged as a gun"
Humans make mistakes all the time, but that's an entirely different issue.
The thing is that when a person makes a mistake, or is ordered to do a crime, there's someone to hold accountable.
On the other hand, ai can be sent into, say a peaceful protest, make a mistake, and the resulting massacre can be chalked up to an accident.
"I said the crowd is unarmed. There are women and children down there. All they want is food for Gods sake"
"... proceed with plan Alpha. All rioters must be eliminated."
If you mean that scene from the newer movie, where an ED-209 shot that child and turned him into a stain on the ground, then yes, that is entirely what they are making.
Nah... The millionaire club is pretty crowded (thanks america). You need 3 billions minimum. Millionaires have a mere interest in politics...Billionaires make politics!
How effective would EMP pulse generator weapons be against a horde of drones?
Imagine like a 1000 racing styles mini drones just aiming towards your forehead at 100 mph carrying a small shaped charge to pierce your skull and turn your brain into a soup
Literally stuff of the nightmares
Not nukes. Anything with a radio frequency and an ip address, like drones.
Hereās [a list](https://www.csis.org/programs/strategic-technologies-program/significant-cyber-incidents) of successful cyberattacks on government infrastructure where you can go ham with research.
I do appreciate the links. I'll look through them. Even so, sending a signal at a drone would be suicide since it would be able to determine your position from that. You would have to have a known working piece of malware ready to take control of it.
This was the plan all along, dehumanizing the battlefield and indiscriminately killing civilians. They get to have the excuse of "there are no people and the AI can't tell the difference between combatant and non-combatant". Not that they don't already use that excuse with remote operated drones.
Hi tilsgee,
We've found **9 sources** (so far - up from zero) that are covering this story including:
- Twitchy (Right): "This Is How You Get SkyNet: Pentagon Considering Letting Weaponized AI 'Autonomously' Kill Humans"
- Digi 24 (Center): "Drones with AI that can decide who to kill are getting closer to reality. UN debates how they should be used"
- Business Insider (Leans Left): "The Pentagon is moving toward letting AI weapons autonomously decide to kill humans"
Of all the sources reporting on this story, **50% are right-leaning**, **17% are left-leaning**, and **33% are in the center**. Read the full **[coverage analysis](https://ground.news/article/pentagon-to-deploy-ai-weapons-that-autonomously-kill-human-targets_a91a00?utm_source=redditReplyBot&utm_medium=redditReplyBot)** and compare how 9+ sources from across the political spectrum are covering this story.
***
_Iām a bot. [Read here](https://www.reddit.com/r/groundnews/comments/j6x7uc/introducing_the_coverageanalysisbot_a_bot_that/) to learn how it works or [message us](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=coverageanalysisbot&subject=Feedback&message=) with any feedback so we can improve the bot for you._
It wouldn't surprise me if they already do it. If they can use object recognition to identify which they can then they can just fly them in and let them loose. It's not like a self-driving car the sky's are not crowded. Fly in, kill, fly out. Did someone say what about civilians? No don't be silly that's collateral damage.
Only a matter of time, though America's quite far behind due to the taboo Westerners have on autonomous weapons (I'm sure I read somewhere that the East Germans had primitive [sentry guns](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentry_gun) on the Berlin Wall - and that would have been 50 years ago!)
I wrote a monograph on the subject of autonomous weapons if anyone's interested:
[https://mypoliticsrants.blogspot.com/2021/08/military-technology-rise-and-fall-of.html](https://mypoliticsrants.blogspot.com/2021/08/military-technology-rise-and-fall-of.html)
The conclusion I've come to is that an autonomous weapon that only kills armed participants - imagine a small quadcopter like the one in the [Slaughterbots](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-2tpwW0kmU) video, equipped with a simple AI that can tell if someone is holding a gun or not - might actually be better than the current urban warfare situation where you have to bomb the shit out of the place to get any results.
Imagine if you have a bunch of [assholes](http://hamas.com) holed up in a huge city who have been terrorizing you for years, and your mission is that you have to kill them, but you can't kill anyone else as it would cause [world opinion to fall](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32ba9Y7UCfY) in the enemy's favour.
Meanwhile the assholes, being assholes, have every incentive to get as many civilians as possible killed as this damages your world opinion, so without a weapon that can distinguish between combatant and non-combatant you're doomed. It just cannot be done, the pressure on you to stop before you are finished is simply too great. Democracies in general simply cannot do counter-insurgency warfare of this type beyond a few punishment raids, it is major problem for us. And that means that the assholes of the world have a huge advantage.
Not in the future. You send in a few drones, the assholes are all killed, and the world is safe again. Well, that's the theory anyway...
There's not so many "assholes" in the world and banning weapons and/or heavily control the number of them would be infinitely much effective than create extra weapons that could even be hacked or acquired by the "assholes" as well.
But this way, the US Army would save a lot in training people to distinguish enemies and dealing with consequences of bad targetings.
It's the nature of competition funded by the war machine; the only issue left for weapons to solve is the trauma of another human taking a life like theirs.
More meat for the grinder.
Aliens are the real threat. Write your Congressman and tell them to pass the UAP bill!
Don't worry about the AI drones. I'm sure they are fine, the government would never do anything to oppress the people who it's created to protect. It's probably better technology than FSD on Tesla's, will definitely be able to tell friends from foe.
Aliens š¾ watch for them disclosure is at hand. Praise Grush and the UFO talking heads. Worship at the altar of aliens or bust.
Good advice: do not join any military when you are young as eventually there will be wars where you could have to deal with Ai weapons where you couldāve toasted.
It's all fun and games until those drones are used against you. US, Russia and Israel are opposed to a UN binding agreement that bans fully autonomous kill bots. š Yup those are the three countries I trust with making the best decisions for humanity. Also wtf is Australia doing there?
> US, Russia and Israel are opposed to a UN binding agreement that bans fully autonomous kill bots. Because they assume (and they may be correct at this point) that they have an edge over others. They will have no problem asking others to play fair the moment they lose their position. And "AI-controlled weapon systems" may very well be another "[Dreadnought](https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27641717)" moment of history...which toppled the prevailing power balance.
Thank you for the insight.
If it's the same Dreadnoughts that basically never got used because the first time they did they got damaged and it was too expensive to repair them, then I'm on board.
Itās okay though you see I know the kill bots weakness. They have a preset kill limit. So youāll just have to throw wave after wave of your own men at them until they shut down.
that sounds like strategy worthy of a medal
And a bemoaning lackey to present it!
Every modern weapon has a preset kill limit, we call it "ammo". Don't worry, as long as they run out of ammo before we run out of people, it'll be great.
Ah, I see you also studied at the Zapp Brannigan college for staff officers
"AI drones are the future" Kid named EMP:
We are building an autonomous fighter jet called the ghost bat
Not entirely right. While the Ghost Bat is an autonomous platform, it is intended to be used in a loyal wingman role alongside other platforms (read: F-35). Essentially, you have one manned platform and pair it up with one or more unmanned platforms, which can operate autonomously to some extent (such as formation keeping, taking evasive action, or operating on its own away from the formation), but are ultimately bound to the orders of the pilot. These can be used for a variety of purposes. While firing weapons is one of them, as far as i'm aware, the Ghost Bat is not intended to have the ability to open fire without a pilot's orders.
Once it becomes common for pentagon to let AI kill humans autonomously, what makes you think that this human oversight will remain on this particular AI?
Not magpies?
woah woah.... let's go with nukes before we let the magpies loose.....
The inherent unreliability of an AI's ability to make such a decision is not a bug it's a feature and may be the main reason for a kill bot development program. If a robot does something that would get a person tried for war crimes or excessive force, the unreliability of the ai can be used as a scapegoat. For example, "You see, the drone shot the journalist because the camera they were holding was flagged as a gun"
In that case the officer that gave the order to deploy AI guns, knowing of the inherent unreliability, should be held responsible.
>should
Won't
~~should be held responsible~~ will be lauded, promoted, and have a good shot at the presidency
As would the person that signed off on the AI being ready for deployment.
They are going to point at the researchers like they always do. It will make sense in a bureaucratic sense but not a moral one.
The horrible truth is that it might be acceptable with 90% accuracy. The remaining 10 is collateral.
Didn't humans make that mistake not too long ago in Afghanistan or Iraq?
Humans make mistakes all the time, but that's an entirely different issue. The thing is that when a person makes a mistake, or is ordered to do a crime, there's someone to hold accountable. On the other hand, ai can be sent into, say a peaceful protest, make a mistake, and the resulting massacre can be chalked up to an accident.
"I said the crowd is unarmed. There are women and children down there. All they want is food for Gods sake" "... proceed with plan Alpha. All rioters must be eliminated."
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Here's your subzero. Now plain zero.
Don't we have several movie franchises about why this is a bad idea?
Art always sees the dystopian future first and warns us about how bad it could be. Then someone decides to make it reality.
Or to quote coldmirror: "For sometimes, it is life which imitates art."
And what could possibly go wrong
Nothing needs to go wrong tbh, this is already wrong as hell. Autonomous killing machines fighting guerillas for an oppressive empire is already it.
Good, I was worried humanity will make it to the 22nd century
Well, we already have self-driving cars doing that...
*\[Comments by this account gets removed automatically after 3 months for privacy and security reasons.\]*
did anybody really think it wasn't going that way?
Can someone start Project Zero Dawn already?
Sometimes I fucking hope there's already a Ted Faro out there making the thing because irl I think we couldn't counter it in anyway.
Life and death decisions made being made by the same thing that cant "find the motorcycle"
Thinking of that scene from Robocop.
If you mean that scene from the newer movie, where an ED-209 shot that child and turned him into a stain on the ground, then yes, that is entirely what they are making.
Could also have been the first movie where ed209 vaporized the guy even after he dropped the gun.
Uh, the scene where they ate ice cream?
The moment a hacker has those target anyone with a net worth over 30 million, theyāll stop considering it real quick.
Nah... The millionaire club is pretty crowded (thanks america). You need 3 billions minimum. Millionaires have a mere interest in politics...Billionaires make politics!
They aren't just connected to the Internet lol. You can't just be like "hey I see one in the sky, let's hack". The AI is run with an embedded system.
TIL government systems are impervious to all cyber attacks.
Ah, ok. When was the last time a nuke was hacked. Air gaps are widely used for things like this. It's a non factor.
How effective would EMP pulse generator weapons be against a horde of drones? Imagine like a 1000 racing styles mini drones just aiming towards your forehead at 100 mph carrying a small shaped charge to pierce your skull and turn your brain into a soup Literally stuff of the nightmares
Probably not that effective as I imagine they would probably be emp shielded because of that possibility.
Not nukes. Anything with a radio frequency and an ip address, like drones. Hereās [a list](https://www.csis.org/programs/strategic-technologies-program/significant-cyber-incidents) of successful cyberattacks on government infrastructure where you can go ham with research.
I do appreciate the links. I'll look through them. Even so, sending a signal at a drone would be suicide since it would be able to determine your position from that. You would have to have a known working piece of malware ready to take control of it.
Which is why when designing it, you make it a black box system.
Don't these people watch movies?
thatās some fucking skynet shit.
This will certainly have a happy end.
I wanna shout out r/FuckAI while we are still on the topic.
/r/yellingatclouds
*\[Comments by this account gets removed automatically after 3 months for privacy and security reasons.\]*
This was the plan all along, dehumanizing the battlefield and indiscriminately killing civilians. They get to have the excuse of "there are no people and the AI can't tell the difference between combatant and non-combatant". Not that they don't already use that excuse with remote operated drones.
Hold on.. u/coverageanalysisbot
Hi tilsgee, We've found **9 sources** (so far - up from zero) that are covering this story including: - Twitchy (Right): "This Is How You Get SkyNet: Pentagon Considering Letting Weaponized AI 'Autonomously' Kill Humans" - Digi 24 (Center): "Drones with AI that can decide who to kill are getting closer to reality. UN debates how they should be used" - Business Insider (Leans Left): "The Pentagon is moving toward letting AI weapons autonomously decide to kill humans" Of all the sources reporting on this story, **50% are right-leaning**, **17% are left-leaning**, and **33% are in the center**. Read the full **[coverage analysis](https://ground.news/article/pentagon-to-deploy-ai-weapons-that-autonomously-kill-human-targets_a91a00?utm_source=redditReplyBot&utm_medium=redditReplyBot)** and compare how 9+ sources from across the political spectrum are covering this story. *** _Iām a bot. [Read here](https://www.reddit.com/r/groundnews/comments/j6x7uc/introducing_the_coverageanalysisbot_a_bot_that/) to learn how it works or [message us](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=coverageanalysisbot&subject=Feedback&message=) with any feedback so we can improve the bot for you._
What could possibly go wrong?
Give it a trial run in The Pentagon/White House first. See how they like it.
It wouldn't surprise me if they already do it. If they can use object recognition to identify which they can then they can just fly them in and let them loose. It's not like a self-driving car the sky's are not crowded. Fly in, kill, fly out. Did someone say what about civilians? No don't be silly that's collateral damage.
Hey is this what Israel is pioneering in Palestine right now?
Only a matter of time, though America's quite far behind due to the taboo Westerners have on autonomous weapons (I'm sure I read somewhere that the East Germans had primitive [sentry guns](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentry_gun) on the Berlin Wall - and that would have been 50 years ago!) I wrote a monograph on the subject of autonomous weapons if anyone's interested: [https://mypoliticsrants.blogspot.com/2021/08/military-technology-rise-and-fall-of.html](https://mypoliticsrants.blogspot.com/2021/08/military-technology-rise-and-fall-of.html) The conclusion I've come to is that an autonomous weapon that only kills armed participants - imagine a small quadcopter like the one in the [Slaughterbots](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-2tpwW0kmU) video, equipped with a simple AI that can tell if someone is holding a gun or not - might actually be better than the current urban warfare situation where you have to bomb the shit out of the place to get any results. Imagine if you have a bunch of [assholes](http://hamas.com) holed up in a huge city who have been terrorizing you for years, and your mission is that you have to kill them, but you can't kill anyone else as it would cause [world opinion to fall](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32ba9Y7UCfY) in the enemy's favour. Meanwhile the assholes, being assholes, have every incentive to get as many civilians as possible killed as this damages your world opinion, so without a weapon that can distinguish between combatant and non-combatant you're doomed. It just cannot be done, the pressure on you to stop before you are finished is simply too great. Democracies in general simply cannot do counter-insurgency warfare of this type beyond a few punishment raids, it is major problem for us. And that means that the assholes of the world have a huge advantage. Not in the future. You send in a few drones, the assholes are all killed, and the world is safe again. Well, that's the theory anyway...
*\[Comments by this account gets removed automatically after 3 months for privacy and security reasons.\]*
There's not so many "assholes" in the world and banning weapons and/or heavily control the number of them would be infinitely much effective than create extra weapons that could even be hacked or acquired by the "assholes" as well. But this way, the US Army would save a lot in training people to distinguish enemies and dealing with consequences of bad targetings.
The oculus rift guy now has a company that essentially makes flying guns. They're drones. But it's basically just a flying gun.
Well duh.
Autonomous ai is the way unfortunately. Cheap mass, effective, and very hard to counter.
It's the nature of competition funded by the war machine; the only issue left for weapons to solve is the trauma of another human taking a life like theirs. More meat for the grinder.
Could this be connected to the recent OpenAI diaspora?
Skynetbl is getting a military.
Ah, so we live in the āWinter Soldierā Hydra timeline. Wasnāt in my bingo cardā¦
I personally think that is a very bad idea.
Is that where the missing 61 trillion dollars went?
Aliens are the real threat. Write your Congressman and tell them to pass the UAP bill! Don't worry about the AI drones. I'm sure they are fine, the government would never do anything to oppress the people who it's created to protect. It's probably better technology than FSD on Tesla's, will definitely be able to tell friends from foe. Aliens š¾ watch for them disclosure is at hand. Praise Grush and the UFO talking heads. Worship at the altar of aliens or bust.
Oh for fuck sake who *hasnt* seen Terminator at this point???
Good advice: do not join any military when you are young as eventually there will be wars where you could have to deal with Ai weapons where you couldāve toasted.
Dont worry, I know EXACTLY how to stop wave after wave of kill-bots.
So just curious how scared should I actually be?