[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.