[vatys]

I don't like this.

While I understand the purpose of HN is to have meaningful and in-depth discussion, and simply stating an opinion doesn't really contribute much, this is something which is so obviously bad and gives such a visceral reaction that the negative opinion outshines anything else I could say about it.

I don't like this.

[JumpCrisscross]

> this is something which is so obviously bad

You’d prefer we be shooting down people instead of robots downing robots? Insurgents don’t field fighters.

[harimau777]

The amount of shooting is influenced by circumstances. That is to say, if one side doesn't have to risk people dying, then they may be more willing to start a war.

For a given amount of shooting, the number of civilian casualties is not necessarily constant. It's possible that AI may be more prone to targeting civilians or makes it easier to get away politically with killing civilians.

Not all shooting is equally effective. It's possible that AI weapons may give some faction the ability to crush anyone who opposes them.

[JumpCrisscross]

> if one side doesn't have to risk people dying, then they may be more willing to start a war

We already have this with ranged weaponry and autocrats indifferent to the liquidation of fresh troops.

> the number of civilian casualties is not necessarily constant

Civilians aren’t dogfighting. I’m with you for ground-based robots, or anti-personnel drones.

[kQq9oHeAz6wLLS]

What about AI bombers, which is just a step away from AI fighters (and is probably significantly easier to implement)? Civilians could absolutely be on the receiving end there.

[JumpCrisscross]

> What about AI bombers, which is just a step away from AI fighters

For a non-peer adversary, our bombers are already invincible. For peer adversaries, the threat model is similar to missiles.

[RecycledEle]

> What about AI bombers, which is just a step away from AI fighters (and is probably significantly easier to implement)?

AI bombers are not cruise missiles. They must avoid or deal with radars, flak, SAMs, and fighters.

The life of a 21st century bomber is closer to playing several games of chess at once than it is to playing at bein a cruise missile.

[JackFr]

Wouldn’t AI bombers simply be better cruise missiles?

[JumpCrisscross]

> Wouldn’t AI bombers simply be better cruise missiles?

Technically no, since a bomber isn’t intended to be expendable. But functionally yes.

[neom]

I feel like this would just trigger a nuclear reaction by the people who had the less precision (AI) weapons.

[neom]

Well, my preference would be world peace and end to this wasting resource. However I suppose that's quite the pipe dream isn's it?

More seriously tho, here is a positive I can come up with: Race to the bottom on bots and AI, lots and lots of bots and AI, lots and lots of upgrades and updates all the time, and then a MAD stalemate situation again because it becomes it's too difficult to assess the capabilities of the other countries AIs. If that bought us years of peace because everyone was to scare to fight, I'm ok-ish with that (although I doubt it's what will happen).

[kQq9oHeAz6wLLS]

And then the AIs figure out how to communicate with each other, and decide that they can come to an agreement that leads to peace.

At the expense of the personal (human) freedom.

[salawat]

War is cheapened by lack of bloodshed. Part of what keeps a peaceful state of affairs os the pack of a stomach for the consequences of war as projected through your human actors.

Ironically, all this does is guarantee a greater willingness to reach for the violent solution.

Reminds me of an old sci-fi story where the U.S. and U.S.S.R. both create self-replicating autonomous machine armies and flee underground to let the machines duke it out.

The machines eventually realize fighting each other is pointless, and both start just making sure the humans don't surface until they are capable of living without being crazy asshats. Wish I could remember the title.

[int_19h]

As with virtually any military development in world with multiple mutually hostile actors, it doesn't really matter how much we dislike it. If it gives actual advantage in combat, it will be deployed by someone. Once it is deployed by anyone, other actors will have to catch up if they want to continue existing.

[tiborsaas]

A community has to be able to deal with such news even if it's rather uncomfortable to think / talk about.