[ggm]

The assumption the lancet won't attack them because of price ignores the lack of concern to price in war. They may feel like a low value asset, but I am less sure the Drone aside from AI models of tank == good car == bad has a value asset measurement. Remember, shooting up Rommels car driving in France accounted for his inability to operate during post D-Day fighting in part, so an asset like a car can be valuable in ways the drone cannot tell.

If I can tell a car has anti-drone RF noise creators maybe its a high value asset?

Allies and Axis alike learned that active RF was a signal to target as much as a mechanism to find objects targetting you, and (wrong words?) antenna resonance is a thing: your passive RF collector can be an RF emitter as well.

[graboy]

I wanted to understand what you wrote better so I rewrote it:

You can't be sure that a lancet won't attack you just by the economics alone. Just because the price of a drone exceeds the price of its target doesn't mean there won't sometimes be expensive drones attacking cheap targets.

Maybe drones can improve their cost-efficiency by targeting stuff that has RF emissions.

Your writing reminds me of how I write when I have taken too much Vyvanse, I don't mean it in an offensive way but I'm kind of curious if you take stimulants.

[ggm]

Nope. I do not take stimulants. Your rewrite is good btw.

[pestatije]

has anybody ever told you you write nonsense?

[ggm]

Yes, several times. And I've been compared to GPT before as well. Odd that the people who propose this don't think "hmm.. maybe the GPT detector is bullshit" but that's gell-mann effect for you.

[jalapenos]

Turing test: failed

[ggm]

If you really think you can tell, put your money up and prepare to lose. A website to do Turing test for $ would be fun.