The Most Terrifying Drone Video Yet

And for each of those many ideas that are currently infeasible, there are probably other solutions that will turn out to be more practical. Technology doesn't progress by someone saying "Here's a way we can probably do this thing in the future, we just need to fill in the details." It works by fulfilling incremental goals toward improving existing technology. Any speculation about currently-impossible means to the end of overarching goals is just adding burdensome details. ( http://lesswrong.com/lw/jk/burdensome_details/ )

So if someone predicts that in the next few decades, we may have small drones that can handle gusts of wind, that's not a bad prediction. When they predict that wind gusts will be handled by a nature-inspired wing-flapping-with-feedback system the which does not remotely exist, you should stop listening. Those extra details sound like they give the hypothesis more credibility, but in fact they are constraining its predictions to a laughably tiny space.

But if you feel there are any TSA workers who are thoughtful, intelligent beings, you are way off. It has massive turnover for darn good reason. Think about the lack of thought and care that has to go into taking a job like that. I mean you would have to really enjoy people hating you, enjoy violating people, or just not caring, and any of that make for a really horrible personality.

People are so quick to get upset these days. Chill.

Make that "science" and I agree, but technology is all about specific uses. What exactly is a non-evil way to use a microdrone with lethal armament?

The US and its allied forces presently have an overwhelming superiority in drone devices (airborne as well as land and sea based). Other parties are likely to catch up, even if only with more primitive devices and at smaller volumes of production, relatively quickly.

The scenario which becomes ... interesting ... is where all parties have access to technology of this type.

Criticisms of the US notwithstanding, the nation generally acts with some level of conscience and oversight. The same cannot be said of all adversaries. An Al Qaeda, North Korea, Iran, or African warlord with such weapons would likely have far fewer reservations in their use.

Even conventional RC aircraft, radio and GPS controls, and small explosives or other ordinance could be used to lethal effect.

Sure, and that's one of the reasons I used such an obviously vague phrase.

The point being that no matter who you define as good or bad, once the cat's out of the bag, it's out, and probably this stuff will be acquired by, and used by, people whose goals you abhor.

And that's really scary.

[I don't think that there's some sort of inherent connection of the tech with "bad", because there are always going to be certain uses, if maybe very narrow ones, which the vast majority of people would find justified. E.g. blah blah Hitler blah blah.]