Hacker News Reader

Except that they don't see it as the end of the world but rather a guaranteed cost when someone considers an invasion.

And as far as I know, autonomous weapons don't inherently involve scorched earth scenarios. Perhaps in the far future the worst war we have will be each side attacking the other's autonomous weapons and then calling a ceasefire because humans are too costly to be in the frontlines.

View on HN

I have the opposite viewpoint, in that I think the one real leap autonomous weapons represent is that they can be programmed to treat human and any other life as even less valuable than the most depraved psychopath would, and therefore can terminate any amount in a very short time without asking for a reason.

I would agree that these weapons should be out of the hands of the average civilian gunowner and put in the hands of say, army commanders. But then you already have the civilian gunowners who dont go through regular psyche tests no?

When people aren't dying in the front lines because it's just robots, there's no reason for a ceasefire. There won't be a human cost to fighting, only for running out of money and losing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com