Killbots built by nation-states (essentially) are already available for purchase. How does an autonomous helicopter drone armed with an AK-47 sound? ;-)
>The Blowfish A2 “autonomously performs complex combat missions, including fixed-point timing detection and fixed-range reconnaissance, and targeted precision strikes.”
>Depending on customer preferences, Chinese military drone manufacturer Ziyan offers to equip Blowfish A2 with either missiles or machine guns.
>Mr Allen wrote: “Though many current generation drones are primarily remotely operated, Chinese officials generally expect drones and military robotics to feature ever more extensive AI and autonomous capabilities in the future.
>“Chinese weapons manufacturers already are selling armed drones with significant amounts of combat autonomy.”
>China is also interested in using AI for military command decision-making.
https://www.technocracy.news/china-releases-fully-autonomous...
China and Russia will ignore any treaties on this, just as Russia has already ignored many including the INF Treaty. As in many other cases, the West will essentially tie its own hands while allowing others to literally get away with murder.
Anyone care to explain?
It should also be mentioned that the drone I linked to above was being shown at an arms show, and is essentially being offered for sale to all comers. I'm sure there'll be healthy sales to some of the more autocratic/aggressive nations out there...
I believe the scientists in question would not be calling for this kind of ban if their sons and daughters were sent into battle against nations equipped with such weapons - in fact, they would be cooperating to develop this very technology if it meant protecting their loved ones.
It's easy to be an idealist, until you've truly got something to lose. I think a lot of people need to be reminded of this.
Do you think it should be legal for citizens to carry RPGs, machine guns, grenades, ..., so they never have to go in to a room in which someone else might have more firepower?
And yes, I think most people agree it should be legal for soldiers to carry machine guns and grenades when in warzones during wars.
The point the GP made was seemingly that we shouldn't let potential enemies have better weapons (autonomous drones), denying them for ourselves.
Yes, I assumed they were considering the context of state sanctioned aggression.
I wondered if they only found that reasoning appropriate for states, or in general.
One could ask "should we always seek for the most terrible weapons to be legal in any context in order to ensure no enemy can outmatch us due to restraints of law?".
In the civilian context, enforcement agencies in most first-world countries are able to restrict weapons and violence reasonably well - most people won't see the need to arm themselves and will prefer to be law abiding. But in countries rife with violence where law enforcement is weak or corrupt, I imagine people would try to arm themselves with what they can regardless legal constraints.
I don't think GP was making an argument that I should carry an AK-47 on me so that any muggers i come across are less likely to out-arm me.
Also, the distances between different countries vs the spread of information is also vastly different. It is harder to commit an international act of violence with no witnesses than it is an interpersonal one, and the threat of retaliation keeps violence at bay, for the most part at least.
Why do people always say ‘nation state’ in these situations? It’s not a fancy word for ‘major country’ - it means something specific. For example the UK is definitely not a nation state. The US is arguably not a nation state either, due to its cultural and lingual heterogeneity and tribal sovereignty.
Jargon nitpicking is my second-least-favourite kind of HN nitpicking, coming in close ahead of "Boy there was an advert on that article!/Why U no adblock?" nitpicking.
A nation state is a nation that is also a state. The UK clearly is a union of four nations into one kingdom. I mean - the clue's in the name.
Additionally "nation" can refer to the collective people rather than a centralized government in action.
Unless you're going to separate out historic county kingdoms (Wessex, Sussex, Kent, Gwent, etc.) then England annexed the counties that compromise the region we now call Wales as lands of the English Crown.
The UK was initially formed by the Union of two kingdoms, England and Scotland at which time all the parts of Great Britain were under the same Monarch.
Your contention doesn't necessarily disagree with this historical fact.
It's "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", not the "United Kingdoms of Great Britain, Northern Ireland, and whatever 3rd one you have in mind"
I was under the seemingly false impression that the Queen was separately Queen of England and Scotland still/again. But it does appear she is Queen "of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas" making her Queen of 2 kingdoms (Great Britain, Ulster) within the UK?
Dictionary result for nation state noun a sovereign state of which most of the citizens or subjects are united also by factors which define a nation, such as language or common descent.
so you can call anything a nation state as long as that thing issues a passport i guess?
What? No - you just gave the argument against that!
> are united also by factors which define a nation, such as language or common descent
This means the UK isn't a nation state - we have four nations in the UK, with different cultures, descents, and in some areas even languages.
It also means that the US is not a nation state - the people there have very distinct descents. Today Americans literally still say they're 'Italian' rather than 'American'. Many Americans don't speak English. The US literally describes tribal lands as 'dependent nations', so it isn't one nation even by their own federal definition.
Examples of nation states are places like Iceland and Portugal. These are the major military players that the original comment was trying to refer to.
MAGA-style nationalism is quite popular and powerful at the moment...
Aren't we already there thought? Don't the US already have semi-autonomous flying kill-driods? The ones that occasional crash Pakistani weddings unannounced.
For more targeted strikes with conventional explosives, we started using Tomahawk Cruise Missiles in 1991 during the Gulf War.
Both of what you mention attack a predetermined target - a target selected by humans.
This technology is about "smart weapons" going out and searching for targets. For instance, the Chinese helicopter drone I mentioned in another post could easily be fitted with an IR sensor, and could probably hit targets out to ~200 meters with the AK.
One challenge is IFF (Identification Friend or Foe), but if you just want the drone(s) to kill all "enemies" within a certain boundary that'd be easy. AK ammo is even cheap, unlike the $500K missiles we often use to blow up individual jihadis...
And of course, at any time a human could potentially take control or at least monitor activity.
Assuming that all nations follow. Otherwise one rogue player can have a huge advantage, and that's the general problem with trying to ban military technologies.
Why? I read the article, but I'm not buying the "would increase conflict" angle. Some countries are in constant conflict anyway. It's not like the reason they're not fighting more is because they have a lack of men. A lack of equipment is much more likely to be the limiting factor.
Swarm warfare is going to be cheap and interesting.
That's why the US can spend a quarter million on IUD proof humvees, and the insurgence can just put pointed caps on them to pierce the armor.
It's a lot cheaper to fuck shit up than it is to defend against it.