There is a strong movement for banning anti-personnel mines precisely because they are horrific weapons that kill and maim indiscriminately.
The problem with mines is less that they are indiscriminate and more that they outlast their battles.
https://www.un.org/disarmament/anti-personnel-landmines-conv...
Also there are 32 countries that refused - sadly no surprises who that actually is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Ottawa_...
If I were to characterize any part of Korea as a “dystopia”, it wouldn’t be the part that defends itself with robot machine guns. Indeed, the robot machine guns were invented to protect South Korea from falling under the dystopia that has overrun the North.
If you believe what the CIA says about other countries, you’ll believe lots of lies.
Would you rather be in North Korea or South Korea?
NK with destroy them with guided artillery or something similar right before attempting an invasion.
So no, they don't serve that purpose.
Like with a minefield, morally fine when marked, very immoral if not marked.
Without even getting into the other aspects of Hezbollah's occupation of lebanon.
People reading this, feeling confused, and think this is an actual discussion. Please go on and read about the topic on wikipedia.
Is it unthinkable that at least some Palestinians would resort to defending themselves after their homes were stolen and while being under constant threat of extermination?
You’re right that it doesn’t compare. Colonisers have always been far more brutal than any response they received.
nobody fires those rockets for fun, either. the casualty rate among the people doing it (and any civilians who happen to be in the area) is much higher than that of their targets.
It might deter some percentage, but considering how many people gladly accept certain death, an increased chance of death isn't a big hurdle.
I'm just thinking in terms of technology and possible outcomes, from a purely pragmatic point of view. You might have just started reading my post by trying to guess which side I was more likely to be on, and then confirmation bias may have just caused you to interpret the way I said things to validate that guess. (I could easily see someone also coming to the opposite conclusion from that post, for example. But you and they would both be wrong.)
I don't think the language I used was "othering". I just think sometimes some things are talked about from an abstract, realpolitik-esque, mechanistic perspective, and sometimes things are talked about from a human and moral perspective. It's only a problem if you're trying to do the latter and you end up sounding like the former.
However, you do make a valid point. I only brought up the afterlife component, but due to what you say, they may feel cornered, like they have less to lose and are making a last stand of sorts, which might further bolster determination and willingness to risk death. So that's another factor.
It's besides the point of the discussion, but I overwhelmingly support the Palestinians in the Israel-Palestine conflict and agree with your comments on the matter. Of course I sympathize with people struggling in desperation. I don't think it's offensive, or a stereotype, or untrue, to say that many of them are more okay with dying because they believe death isn't permanent and that the afterlife will be a positive experience. I think that's just a fact which carries no value judgment.
Of course, I understand that even if they thought death were permanent, they still may brazenly risk death to fight for their cause, but my point was that the belief that it isn't permanent even further increases that determination to face death.
This is just a thread about AI, not about politics, which is why I made it about AI.
It's going to be difficult for you to find many people who agree with this assertion.
Most people awknowledge the necessity of self defense, and many others who agree with the death or penalty agree with the idea of death as punishment for certain classes of crimes.
Now there's an argument to be made about a judicial process being followed or the issue with unintended consequences/blowback but it's a hard sell to your average person that a brutal dictator shouldn't be killed.
Autonomous weapon systems are no different. They raise the deterrence factor so that you are not likely to be attacked by simply having the capability and your adversary knowing that you have the capability.
This is something i've always found weird... Nukes arguably make the world safer by your definition one but particular country gets to decide who is safe and who gets a free conversion to democracy.
Its maddening.
It depends on who has them and how they use them.
Autonomous weapon systems are (theoretically) much more precise and don't leave radioactive destruction in their wake (unless they are nuclear-armed autonomous weapons systems--that's a terrifying thought).
The greater precision and less permanent nature means they are more likely to be used offensively rather than just held in strategic reserve as most nuclear arsenals are.
What makes nukes unique, and MAD work, is the simple observation known to every nation: if one country decides to nuke another, there's nothing anyone can do about this - once the decision is made and the button is pressed, the other country turns into glass. But since nukes fly longer than the time it takes to detect and launch a retaliation strike, no one dares to launch first because they'll get glassed too, and there's also nothing anyone can do about it.
Conventional weapons, autonomous or not, can't unleash destruction at necessary scale and certainty.
There are quite a few countries that have nukes now, and not just half a dozen little ones. For example, India has SSBNs.
I think you are wrong. most countries do a terrible job of efficiently- or even effectively- defending borders. I'm not making a political statement, but just look how many illegal immigrants get into US, EU, etc. Even Israel, which is relatively small, has to invest vast resources into maintaining their fences. Please note, i don't want to be dragged into a political discussion, i'm simply explaining why i think your are wrong.
That's not inefficient/ineffective, the system is just optimized for different things. It ensures a cheap and compliant labor force for things like agriculture.
If we narrow the discussion to borders that aren’t very peaceful, there aren’t many successful solutions. It looks like “nothing gets through” works, but “only approved traffic gets through” doesn’t work.