[reallymental]

As a human, this looks terrifying. Imagine being attacked by robot dogs. Now imagine being attacked by robot dogs that have rocket launchers!

Straight out of a Fast & Furious movie. You can(!) make this shit up.

But as a person in tech, where all my values are directed towards "making a better world"... this also goes against every ideal we have. Unless you count living in a world where we have the ability to exterminate a large amount of people without proportional retaliation as a "better world", in a non-nuclear way.

We don't use biological weapons, so why use seeing robots with rockets on them? Oh yeah I forgot, we can't "catch a disease" from these robots, and they have a "limited" damage capability, unlike bio-warfare that can go out of hand and can poison lands.

Coincidentally, the second point also means that we'll have to make a lot of them, and gosh darn it we'll have to build more factories and supply jobs to people. Wait a min...

I'm really happy that less marines will be put in harms way when they try to launch missiles from their shoulders (also crazy if you think about it too much), but they did sign up for it, and they're not facing an army that can comprehend what's coming towards them.

I've got competing opinions in my head, but one thing is for sure, autonomous warfare can either be a chess game that countries play (as a proxy for all the human lives), or the final game we'll play.

[friend_and_foe]

But this is the direction warfare is going, whether we like it or not. It started the first time anyone used a machine as a weapon. The mechanized warfare of the first half of the 20th century was very scary to people, and was very efficient at killing, but now we all look at it as the norm. The same will happen with this, and this is just a continuation of the same process.

Ukraine using cardboard drones to blow up Russian tanks, Hamas using quads to hit targets. Eventually all warfare will be done this way, and every actor will have access to autonomous technologies.

I argue it is a good thing; the goal in warfare is to negate the enemy's ability to continue their campaign, strategically as well as economically. Historically, manpower was the source of economic production as well as strategic advantage, so warfare focused on killing people. In a world where the strategic and economic targets are machinery rather than people, the number of human casualties decreases. Target automated factories and caches of autonomous weapons, force surrender, less people die.

It also democratizes access to force, no more will the ability to establish sovereignty be limited to those will large populations. It levels the playing field, like firearms did, and reduces the ability for despots to concentrate power. It is the great equalizer 2.0.

Of course, during the process of normalization of fully mechanized warfare, there will be asymmetry and people will die. But I believe the end result of this is a more peaceful world.

[garblegarble]

Yep, absolutely terrifying!

There's always the old chestnut that if your country doesn't develop it, another country (or well-funded faction) with fewer scruples will, and if they think that their tech gives them a significant advantage over you, war is more likely (because they will have a much stronger belief they can win / win at a lower cost).

That's also why we see slick video reveals of stealth bombers and missiles nowadays. The best weapon is one you never have to use in anger.

[dylan604]

To even think that robot dogs would "attack" you in the same sense a real dog would is the funniest thing to me. Of course a robot dog would use missiles, guns, lasers, chemical spray, etc.

[I_Am_Nous]

Reminds me of the book Daemon by Daniel Suarez (or its sequel, Freedom) where the automated, world controlling daemon uses robot drones with blinding lasers to semi-permanently incapacitate everyone in an area.

Pretty neat story :)

[spacecadet]

lol nah it should use a mechanical mouth with some insane hydraulic clamping force. And claws, why not give it some stainless razor wire claws while we're at it.

[invalidname]

I used to think that but I changed my mind after being in the army myself.

What you're saying is lets send our soldiers (human beings) into a dangerous situation where they can get killed.

If warfare still exists I would rather have robots fighting robots and remove humans from the equation altogether. Second best is to minimize casualties from "our side". Yes, that's terrible but it's also more humane.

In war soldiers get killed, this typically escalates violence which increases to both sides. It makes the war more bloody and more personal. Drones are terrible but they significantly reduced US casualties in the war against ISIS. There's collateral damage, but that happens for human attacks as well.

In fact, with robots we don't need lethal weapons at all. A recent US drone strike killed a terrorist with flying knives to avoid hurting his family. If a soldier was physically there they would have to start shooting and blowing up the region so no one will shoot back at them. A robot/drone wouldn't have that problem.

Don't get me wrong, I'm scared of many aspects related to robots in these scenarios. Specifically the ability of a minority elite controlling the masses. But I also think that robots can help remove a lot of the value/incentive of wars. If countries only sacrifice robots during wars, why fight at all? Use economics policies instead. Maybe we can call it Pax Robota...

[justinclift]

There are some obvious problem scenarios though, which are unfortunately likely to happen:

* The "no human in the loop" combat robot is deployed into an area with non-combatants, but wrongly classifies them as enemy combatants.

* The "no human in the loop" combat robot gets damaged while in active combat, forgetting the concept of "friendlies"

* The "no human in the loop" combat robot gets hacked. All sorts of ways this could go badly. If they're hacked en-masse that's potentially amplified dramatically.

[invalidname]

100% true and concerning. My main problem is that people treat this as a simple black and white "killer robot is evil" situation. It's not. It's far more nuanced.

[huytersd]

I mean tanks are machines. Why can’t you have a remote controlled anti tank device.

[e-clinton]

Fast and the Furious? I take it you haven’t seen Black Mirror?

[JumpCrisscross]

> where we have the ability to exterminate a large amount of people

Counterpoint: it’s an anti-tank rocket. Not a machine gun. (Obviously, they’ll also put a machine gun on it.)

[mcpackieh]

To be fair, the M72 was originally built as a light anti-armor weapon but many other versions of it have since been developed. Particularly anti-structure rockets with fragmentation warheads.

[I_Am_Nous]

Introducing the A10D Wardog with dual barrel M134 Miniguns

[jjtheblunt]

> this also goes against every ideal we have

Counterexample:

https://www.wjcl.com/article/officers-kill-man-who-killed-a-...

And there are countless other actual police dogs hurt or killed by violent offenders.

Sending actual dogs in to snoop out bad guys, who then shoot the police dog, sadly happens. Send in a robot with a rocket launcher, the bad guy is like oh fuck this bad guy nonsense, and the robot dog just has to recharge batteries.

[smogcutter]

Agreed, police should stop using dogs to escalate violent confrontations!

[RecycledEle]

If you want to know how much the courts value you as a person, remember that if a cop's dog kills you there will be no criminal charges.

If you kill a cop's dog, you will face the death penalty.

[justinclift]

> who then shoot the police dog

What would you expect them to do? Play fetch with it?

[jjtheblunt]

I think, despite the humor fail, you have an accidental point, because the police dogs DO fetch unarmed hidden offenders.

[justinclift]

Exactly. So the bad guys will treat those dogs as they would any other threat.

Liable to go badly for the dogs when the bad guys are armed.