Hacker News Reader

Comment by Thetawaves | Hacker News Reader

So where does everybody go when their jobs have been eliminated? What will young people do to make themselves valuable and provide for themselves and their families?

Eventually the losers in this equation will risk everything to correct the inequality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Muammar_Gaddafi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring

View on HN

Technology has radically shifted the kill gap. A more technologically advanced soldier can kill exponentially more combatants who have less technology.

And that gap is just getting bigger and bigger until we get rid of that soldier entirely and he is replaced by a robot or drone swarm.

18 U.S. soldiers to 300 enenmys dead(20 years ago) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_(1993)

4000 to 24,000 enemys https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

That kill gap is just getting bigger and bigger as the years go by.

American soldiers can use I.R. to 'see through walls'...how can a guy with an AK47 and a canteen compete with that.

> how can a guy with an AK47 and a canteen compete with that.

suicide attacks (bombs, airplanes, nuclear radiation) ...which is exactly what we see today.

But that is a nuisance more than the ability to own/maintain control.

Yeah but as the military gets more automated, and we're seeing it already with drones, hellfire missiles, tomahawks, autonomous tanks, the 'wizards in a tower' will not be affected by those.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/show-daily/ausa-glo...

To be honest, they might be impressive figures but the whole military campaign has been quite a failure. Maybe the solider is able to kill more, but it doesn't seem like much has been accomplished.

It's because the goal isn't killing and they're not allowed to use the vast majority of their power.

What's going on with the numbers you quoted here.

Battle of Mogadishu is a 16:1 kill ratio, where as the Iraq war is 6:1 as you've written it.

I'm confused.

Sorry haha posted it in a hurry. Those were meant as equivalent examples of modern kill gaps. You see kill gaps increase historically everytime a group gets a more advanced technology, i.e. chariot, phalanx, rifleman, airplane.

The problem is...back to O.P.'s comment...we're getting to the point where a battle can be won with 'wizards in a tower' the technology is so advanced soldiers wont even be needed. drone/hellfire missile, a tomahawk missile...drone swarms, remote tanks, etc. This seems pretty much unbeatable to an armed force who has to put actual human beings on the field.

One was a short battle, the other was an occupying and peace keeping force from almost day 1.

not one person, a group acting without concern for the individual. sacrifice, die for the greater good. turn the enemy's strength against them.

In regards to your links, take a look at Syria, especially Aleppo. Look what brutal application of airpower without regard to collateral damage can accomplish. In the scenario that the posters above are talking about, the winners will have vastly more killing power at their disposal.

In addition, the likelihood is that this killing won't even be ordered by a human. The AI will detect that the masses are revolting and start killing people until either the revolt stops or all the people are are eliminated. Those at the top will be blissfully unaware that this is even happening.

'All the people'? I find it hard to visualize a future where NOBODY is in charge. Why would AI do anything? Why would it care about some pesky humans?

So if somebody is in charge, you are talking about a difference between the haves and the have nots. The natural result is the have nots deminishing until they are gone, but I think human politics inside the have demographic will be just as treacherous .. rife with in-fighting and similar territorial disputes.

Sort of a might makes right situation where power is seized or transferred in an 'orderly' way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com