Demonstration video of the drone: https://www.stm.com.tr/en/kargu-autonomous-tactical-multi-ro...
I'd almost prefer that this showed something like someone's head getting blown off their body, to demonstrate the actual brutality of what it is designed to do, over making it seem like some video game.
They're a really twisted group of people that mostly feel like they have no other opportunities (that maintain their lifestyle). Not so different than people employed in any other industry, just important to understand.
If you’re wondering why it’s an effective video, it’s because it makes me want one. I don’t even have anything to blow up. That’s the essence of effective marketing.
We can also recognize that in the wrong hands, it’s an evil device. But so is a gun. And I would imagine the reactions to the first portable guns may have been similar.
Lots of people find guns cool, and I have lots of fond memories of shooting with my dad and a friend. Learned about gun safety and how to properly care for one. I also learned I wasn’t responsible enough to keep one, so I’ve never bought one.
This is obviously different. But it’s not inconceivable that in the future, you might be able to deploy a sentry quadcopter designed to chase down (not destroy) someone who just attacked you. I was shocked that there was a drive-by shooting in my neighborhood a few months ago. Would’ve totally sic’d a drone on them the moment I heard the gunshots.
Dunno. Sometimes I feel lonely for feeling this way, when the only acceptable social response is outrage or indignation. It’s cool to blow things up, and humans have had a long and proud tradition of making things go boom.
The key is to make sure that this tech won’t have unforeseen consequences. But as far as I can tell, the consequences appear to be foreseen in this case. It’s a drone that goes boom when next to someone.
All that said, I agree that it’s a terrible idea to let it decide to do this automatically. But in a warzone, it’s not impossible to imagine some heuristics that might make sense in certain highly constrained circumstances.
Of course, most dictators don’t really care about minimizing civilian casualties, and dictatorships seem like the target audience. But, ditto for guns.
Certainly long, but I'm not particularly proud of the many ways we've found to kill each other.
The immediate second order effect is, people start buying drones programmed to destroy a drone seeking them out. This should be much less controversial than the first drone, since it's not operating on a human target. Now the first drone needs to be able to eliminate one -- and shortly, multiple -- drone(s) before then destroying the human target. The defending drone(s) will certainly increase in number and firepower. It's basically a straight line to automated warfare in the streets with no regard for collateral damage.
The hurdles, of course, would be regulation on the ability to purchase drones, and the permitted level of firepower. I don't like the idea of us negotiating the laws around that while drones are causing collateral damage in an urban (or any) environment.
This is literally about killing another human being and you went with “Well yeah but”.
Tripwires attached to a claymore fall under boobytrapping laws under arguments of reckless endangerment. I've heard it reasoned as there's no mind behind the assault and so it's reckless even if it harms someone breaking and entering.
Facial recognition gets closer to an intelligence behind the weapon, but a less than human intelligence (less than canine?). At what point does your "tripwire" have enough intelligence to be legitimate under castle doctrine?
It also kind of has to explode itself to do it’s job, which feels like a waste to me. So many things you can do with a drone that are immediately useless if it blows itself up.
I'm not sure what your point is here? The 'but' implies that we all now agree that guns are basically OK which is not universally true, and I would say increasingly the opposite.
Also your conception of 'the wrong hands' and other peoples' are not necessarily the same - one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and so on.
> But it’s not inconceivable that in the future, you might be able to deploy a sentry quadcopter designed to chase down (not destroy) someone who just attacked you. I was shocked that there was a drive-by shooting in my neighborhood a few months ago. Would’ve totally sic’d a drone on them the moment I heard the gunshots.
I think this is exactly what scares people - there are people who would sic killer drones on people Judge Dredd style, out of a misguided sense of moral duty; I heard about a recent case of someone using the 'stand your ground' laws to justify (and be celebrated for!) going to a neighbour's house during a robbery and shooting the thieves in the back, killing them both. Not to mention that in a future where these things are available, that drive-by would've instead been a fly-by killing and you might never know who did it.
You talk about these people like their lives are very important, and that it's both worthy and honorable to protect them.
In reality, this is what it's like: https://twitter.com/theshawwn/status/1301407648420593664
It was scary as hell to have a drive-by happen. The cops couldn't do anything. They were long gone by the time the police came. And then they came back and shot up the same place again a few hours later.
If I had a drone that could track them, they may have been brought to justice. I don't see this tech the same way you do. I see it as a stepping stone towards a world where people can protect themselves and their loved ones, as they do with guns.
I think we'll just need to agree to disagree. I have a lot of things I could say, but I just don't get how people can calmly live in a country that was earned through bloodshed, while decrying those who were willing to lay down their lives for you.
This is a military device. It's designed to kill people, because this is one of life's unfortunate necessities. I think the people here who are saying that there's nothing honorable about killing someone should teleport themselves back to Midway in 1942 and tell your great-grandparents that, face to face.
> You talk about these people like their lives are very important, and that it's both worthy and honorable to protect them.
> In reality, this is what it's like: https://twitter.com/theshawwn/status/1301407648420593664
> It was scary as hell to have a drive-by happen. The cops couldn't do anything. They were long gone by the time the police came. And then they came back and shot up the same place again a few hours later.
I don't personally care so much about the lives of people who engage in this kind of behaviour, but I do care about living in a peaceful society where violence is regulated by the law rather than being handed out vigilante-style. Arming everybody does not prevent gun violence, it enables it. You need only look at the blatant correlation between the number of guns per capita in the US and the number of shootings in the US. I'm in the UK - you know what we don't have lots of? Guns. You know what we also don't have lots of? Gun violence. It still happens, of course, but it's far rarer, and I don't feel the need to arm myself just to stay safe. That drive-by you were unfortunately so close to was made easier by increased access to weapons.
> If I had a drone that could track them, they may have been brought to justice. I don't see this tech the same way you do. I see it as a stepping stone towards a world where people can protect themselves and their loved ones, as they do with guns.
The trouble is, the easier it is for you to get hold of this kind of drone tech, the easier it is for everyone, which obviously includes those who would do you harm. See my comment above. You want a drone that can follow people around? So do a host of spurned lovers and over-protective parents and so on and so on - it's not the clear win for society that you seem to think it is.
> ...I just don't get how people can calmly live in a country that was earned through bloodshed, while decrying those who were willing to lay down their lives for you.
You seem to think I'm ragging on the military, but I'm not - perhaps you're referring to other comments? In general, one's neighbours shouldn't be laying down their lives for each other on a day to day basis unless they're in the military or the police, who are, at least in theory, trained and regulated in their use of force and when to deploy it (yes there are obvious potential problems there too, but that's a different discussion).
I would also like to point out that the bloodshed is supposed to be temporary - once the wars are won and safety is assured (I'll assume you're referring to the World Wars here), we're supposed to stop shooting each other.
> This is a military device.
So are AR-15s - how many of those are in the hands of twitchy civilian militia groups and other randomers with a grudge?
> I think the people here who are saying that there's nothing honorable about killing someone should teleport themselves back to Midway in 1942 and tell your great-grandparents that, face to face.
I'm willing to bet that the majority of those who served in World War II didn't see anything honourable about it either, just that it was a grim necessity, which it absolutely was. Honour and glory are concepts the armed forces use to encourage people to do necessary but horrible things - we should of course be eternally grateful for and respectful of their sacrifices, but I think it's actually disrespectful to the fallen to glorify war, as they gave everything so their descendents wouldn't need to engage in it.
In this case, you feel that war is a grim necessity, and also admit that this is a military device. If your country is in a war, wouldn’t you want to be on the winning side? Culture often doesn’t survive losing a war.
If so, then I don’t understand why people are against development of this tech. If you’re on the battlefield, you bet that you’d want a way to take out the people shooting at you from the hill on the other side. Usually that means calling in air support. Here, your air support can be almost pocket sized.
It’s pretty much as simple as that, and I think the crux of the disagreements. People seem worried that this tech will get out of hand. I am too. But it also feels inevitable.
Would you want to fight a war without guns? Because it sounds similar to an argument against developing guns.
What happens when people who did the driveby get the technology (if you can buy the drones so can the bad guys).
What happens when your autonomous drone decides to shoots neigburs kid for playing hid and seek, in a fashion that drone algorithms find objectionable.
And suppose your drone goes after them, finds them, then what ? You do realize that after, the drive by is done and they "flee" the scene, you can't just go after them and shoot them as a civilian? You can defend your property (someplaces ) but that does not include chasing after them.
Is the drone smart enough not to shoot when there are other people behind it's targets ? what if it's Halloween ?
Supose those drones get sold, and given current IOT security standards, someone hacks them ?
I don’t like it either, for what it’s worth.
This scares the shit out of me. Call me naive but the idea that somebody on the other side of the planet can set me as a target in a device that they just set and release is completely inhuman. If you want me dead, then do me the curtesy of at least putting your own arse on the line to achieve it.
The potential for this type of device to be cobbled together is well within the capability of pretty much any reasonably funded electronics hobbyist, and I think one of the reasons that we haven't seen it more frequently is that hitherto it's not been morally acceptable. If this type of weapon becomes mainstream in government arsenals then you can kiss that goodbye.
As hn_throwaway_99 mentions below, the "Slaughterbots" video is not too far off from how STM presents their equipment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fa9lVwHHqg.
Had a similar reaction once before, after randomly walking in a military exhibition. While I understand the need for defence capabilities, and I can be impressed by the engineering, I don't get the triumphant glitter surrounding the showcase of killing machines.
You know, the other day I saw a news headline about one of the world's biggest arms dealers being arrested... and the first thought through my mind was, "What? They arrested the United States?"
Being a small fry, independent arms deal is grounds for imprisonment, but doing it as part of a nation-wide effort will get you wealth, medals, social status and government funding.
We still haven't learnt to live with one another - after all these millennia on earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0om03oXX_8
Awesome launching system.