https://www.theguardian.com/technol ogy/2017/aug/20/elon-mus

File: 1474865065577.gif (993KB, 636x449px)

993KB, 636x449px

they probably actually created a decently intelligent AI in a backroom somewhere and it tried to "escape" or "invade" other systems at the lab and they got really freaked out and tried to stop it and it defended itself which was scary. so they scared

>good goyim keep sending your young men to the front lines to die there is no need for robot soldiers

>>9116961
>The Smurfs still hold influence in the geopolitical arena

I think the fear is somewhat rational, but I also believe the world doesn't have a short supply of people, surely they could be of good use (robutts are expensive)

File: Makise.Kurisu.full.716616.jpg (444KB, 715x1000px) Image search: [Google]

444KB, 715x1000px

>>9117016
This

File: 01.gif (1MB, 482x270px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 482x270px

REMINDER

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qU7FuAswPW0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qU7FuAswPW0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qU7FuAswPW0

>>9116961

He's an idiot who watched one too many James Cameron movies. An AI that can go rogue in the first place is by definition a poor design.

>sure we won't use a very effective military tactic because it would be mean

Swarm Warfare was predictable decades ago. Its the norm. You can't compete with swarm warfare without AI.

I think removing humans from the battle field dehumanizes war.
>think: "It puts the lotion on the skin, or else it gets the hose again"

Creating AI killer robots is automatizing killing humans. Let me say that again, they're trying to automate the process of killing human beings. If that doesn't send a shiver down you're spine maybe you already are a robot.

These 2 factors, dehumanization of other humans and automation of killing humans is a recipe for merciless, and guiltless, genocide. We don't need to invent ways of making war more lethal. What we REALLY need are ways of reducing the lethality of war. Keeping our troops alive is more important than how many jihads are killed. After all these people welcome death. Killing them is doing exactly what they want. We should be working on new body armors and combat medicine, not deadlier weapons.

>>9117092
>walk onto battllefield swarming with cheap drones with small explosives

Humans can not survive on a real modern battlefield. Even ISIS has used drones to kill people. Imagine the powers the major world powers have. Swarm Warfare is everywhere. Even the Navies of the world are adopting submarine swarm warfare.

Literally nothing can compete with the efficiency of swarm warfare. It's something you can see in nature.

A fast, look up videos of fast drones, will easily kill any human on a battlefield that isn't under extremely enclosed fortification.

Something similar to swarm warfare has been existence since Desert storm as well with munitions that automatically detect and target vehicles.

>>9117016
>>9117043
I thought /sci/ was supposed to be at least somewhat smart

File: ISIS attack on outpost.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>9116961
>rules and articles of war

Bit of an oxymoron really.

You guys realize that this is just one more step in the flat circle, right? At one time, kings played chess to determine shit. Now leaders want to use robots to do it. Eventually, it'll just be 2 rooms of servers battling it out over chess that determines everything.

File: ISIS Drone Bomb.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>9117109
>Even ISIS has used drones to kill people.

This is a huge thing now.

>>9117122
Of course but the AI will be better at being a leader than any human. It's now kings sitting around twiddling their thumbs while an AI-king does the thinking.

It's not just the pawns that don't matter now.

File: French police are training EAGLES to attack ISIS drones.webm (3MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x360px

>>9117125
>>9117109

File: ISIS Drone Bombs.jpg (91KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 960x720px

>>9117130
Imagine what people would be doing if they didn't have to bother with war in any manner at all.

>>9117125
Of course. The age of Swarm Warfare began. The battlefield will resemble a weird evolutionary battleground of robotic survival. You can get a better idea of what will succeed by looking at patterns in natural evolution rather than history of war now.

>>9117132
Damn that's some real Mad Max shit right there. Can't imagine those bombs being very powerful.

>>9117109
>>9117125
ISIS has adopted drone warfare cause the US has been using it against them for years.
If the US develops automated killer AI robots WTF you think ISIS will do next?

We currently have no defense against this. How long till you think ISIS starts using these drones against civilians? How long till ISIS gets it's hands on true automated AI killer robots, before they start using it on civilians?

The best way to prevent ISIS from obtaining killer AI robots, is to never use them against ISIS in the first place. Never even develop the technology. Instead develop anti-killer AI technology and you could prevent future terrorist attacks years or decades before the enemy even thinks about doing it.

>>9116961
He understands that China won't give a fuck?

File: Untitled.png (833KB, 1154x480px) Image search: [Google]

833KB, 1154x480px

>>9117137
I wonder how large the one in >>9117125 is.

>>9117140
predator drone is a different class than swarm warfare

When there are 10 drones for every human and the drones operate relatively close is when it's swarm warfare.

Predator is a shitty version. When you have autonomous vehicles delivering 100s of miniature drones that swarm and blow up next to faces you have swarm warfare.

When bombs deliver packages of drones that spread out, de-activate, and wait for activation signals to go online and find nearest human to blow up then you have swarm warfare.

Literal drone mines that activate, fly up, and drop down at terminal velocity on someone's head are swarm warfare.

ISIS just are doing proof of concepts.

>>9117116
Are you really surprised?

File: slam.gif (3MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 480x270px

>>9117151
I can understand the allure of swarms of drones, but giving them lethal force is too risky. You're talking about making literal mine fields that can be hacked by the enemy and flipped on/off with a switch remotely. Even when operating perfectly minefields result in friendly and civilian casualties.

I think the only place drone swarms have is in active battlefield reconnaissance. You could have a swarm of non-lethal drones map the entire layout of the battlefield and locate every soldier on the battle field and identify them based on physical features or clothing. If it's like you said, 10 drones per 1 soldier, you could have eyes on every single combatant at all times. This'd reduce the risk of friendly fire and civilian casualties to near zero, and greatly reduce the risk to active combatants. The greatly reduced risk negates the need to replace humans with robots.

File: IMG_1970.png (59KB, 1000x707px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 1000x707px

>>9117092
Maybe you don't understand shit about war.

Better weapons discourage war and cut conflict short. Less people die in war now than ever before.

>>9117212
>Cherrypicked examples of a few warlike tribes with probably low populations out of the millions that have existed throughout history
Ah yes...........

>>9116961
Technological warefare is a waste of time and money. You might as well have sacred games of rock-paper-scissors when you remove the human element from war.

>>9117212
you're talking about mutually assured destruction

This only works when both sides have equally and unbearably lethal weapons technology. It's a deadly game of chicken that results in everybody dieing, or nobody dieing at all. But that's not the case in this scenario. In this scenario it's an arms race of lethality. The good guys develop AI technology faster than their enemies, and they win the war. Till the enemies get last year's model of killer AI drones, while they can't compete with the newest models, you've still just given the enemy far more lethal weapons than they've ever possessed. This forces the "good guys" to create even more deadlier and lethal weapons to keep one step ahead, and which will just get acquired/replicated by the enemy given enough time. This cycle continues with one side not afraid to use lethal force cause they have the technological advantage, and the other side forced out of desperation to adopt the very same deadly weapons making them more lethal and a greater risk.

File: GRANIT_05.jpg (737KB, 1276x921px) Image search: [Google]

737KB, 1276x921px

>>9117196
It all sounds very dangerous, and these are real problems, but you're under some delusion that warmongers don't care about practical problems and just want weapons that KILL KILL KILL. No. These are perfectly pragmatic concerns that you don't want your weapons to be doing. You don't want to kill civilians or have your bombs hacked. It's not that it can't happen. You don't want it to happen and so you take steps to prevent it from happening.

The premise that anyone is ignoring these concerns is a strawman.

File: main-qimg-37601eeb100ad9c65e4b58138af57aa5.png (236KB, 3000x2145px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 3000x2145px

>>9117217
It's easy when you can just talk out of your ass.

>>9117263
Not necessarily. Choosing to attack someone involves a risk assessment. Predators are at risk of death or injury if they misjudge their prey.

It's about deterrence. MAD is also about deterrence, but it's not the same thing. You want to make sure that an enemy attacking you cannot do so easily or cheaply.

>>9117196
Okay, so assuming it is a conventional intervention against a non-nuclear/wmd state. They might have some guy in the USA press a button saying "kill target".

The problem with your example is that it would mostly be about politics. Having the drone simply jet in and explode is easier and safer. They can also just have a human touching the controls when it does so and say it's not autonomous.

>>9117064
>orm. You can't compete with swarm warfare wit


>hes an idiot
>CEO of space ex...
>neet posting on 4chan.

lold

>>9116961
>WTF with his obsession with killer IA ?
Because despite being a decent businessman he's a brainlet that gets his worldview from hollywood films?

>>9117016
You don't need an AI to create a Terminator. It doesn't need to write Shakespeare if all it needs to do is kill.

All you need is basic software to scan, avoid obstacles, and attack enemies.

File: quadcopter swarm.webm (3MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x360px

We already have swarm tech, both in mili and civi for over a decade now,

http://www.popsci.com/pentagon-drone-swarm-autonomous-war-machines
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOd4-T_p5fA

>>9117035
not when they can build themselves. I like his safe general AI plan or whatever it was called. Instead of making a computer that can answer any question, make one that can answer a specific question

>>9116961
impossiblu
rich countries will get is asap because
1. They have enough money
2. They have know how and tech companies
3. Robots will not miss, can work 24/7 and society will be less against war if their boys will not die everyday.

It will make even greater gap between rich countries and shitholes

>>9117092
Holy shit...I thought

>"if we kill our enemies, they win"
Was a meme...

>>9120440
Neutralizing the threat is more important than enemy body count. "Killing the enemy" is just a tactic or strategy with the end goal of neutralizing a threat. As a tactic/strategy it only works because you're putting the fear of death into those survivors on the enemy side. If they don't fear death, as is often the case with religious nuts, then the old tactic of "killing the enemy" will fail. It will only succeed if you kill 100% of them. This 100% death rate is also known as genocide.
In the entire history of mankind, I'm aware of no instance where 100% genocide has occurred. There are always survivors, tho reduced in numbers.

"if we kill our enemies, they win" is fucking inane logic, but the only truth there is that killing the enemy sometimes isn't enough to neutralize the threat, which is the true end goal.

>>9120440
>was a meme
Not as far as insurgency goes it isn't.

>>9116961
No, we need to design these things and then set them loose on the Middle East for wasting our time.

>>9117092
...and what's wrong with that, exactly? As nuclear weapons have shown, the more lethal and expensive war is, the more prohibitive it is to wage. If jihads can't declare war without leading their civilization into a museum display, then they'll quit trying to declare it. Boom. World peace.

If you don't want to be killed by the killer robots, don't declare war on nations possessing them. It's the aggressor's own fault for leading the people that place their trust in them into deadly scenarios.

>>9117263
Nuclear weapons do not cease existing because of AI technology. There is nothing stopping a nuclear-armed nation from simply nuking the AI-holding civilization before their robots even leave the country.

>>9123961
>set them loose on the Middle East for wasting our time.
why are they wasting your time? why are YOU wasting THEIR time? who declared YOU the world police, that you HAVE to get involved in many wars? how about you worry about your own shit, and only about your shit?

>>9123974
>who declared YOU the world police
Congress did. You think we want to babysit Afghanistan and Iraq when we could be sending that money towards the space program instead? All I know is that the rationale for keeping our boots on the ground there is because we need their governments stable to harvest opium or some equally inane crop that's apparently a billion dollar industry, and that somehow makes up for the billions in debt we're racking up acting as their personal police force, since apparently with all those billions coming in they're incapable of defending their own territory.

By giving those people robots to babysit them we can focus again on more important matters like Space and China and Space Chinese.

>>9117116
you only need to fight with a fussy CD-drive once to go full neo-luddite.

Down with the Machines!

I just think it would be funny we started using autonomous weapons to save humans the risk of direct conflict, and it became taboo to let any human die in a war, like how it's taboo to kill civilians now. Wars would become this silly little game of who could throw the most resources away, and hellish scenes would be playing out away from everyone, with no real consequences for anyone until one side willingly surrenders.

>>9124003
>Congress did
read the history of your country/govt. this is not the first conflict your country has been involved, nor it will be the last. US imperialism/expansionism has been a thing for centuries...
protip: it's not about caring for the people there, it's about money and power.

>>9124018
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potlatch

>"In the potlatch, the host in effect challenged a guest chieftain to exceed him in his 'power' to give away or to destroy goods. If the guest did not return 100 percent on the gifts received and destroy even more wealth in a bigger and better bonfire, he and his people lost face and so his 'power' was diminished."[13] Hierarchical relations within and between clans, villages, and nations, were observed and reinforced through the distribution or sometimes destruction of wealth, dance performances, and other ceremonies. The status of any given family is raised not by who has the most resources, but by who distributes the most resources. The hosts demonstrate their wealth and prominence through giving away goods.

>>9117739
Well that's pretty redundant isn't it? At that point, is it even AI anymore?

>>9117242
I mean how hard is it to disrupt wireless communication
and how hard is it to generate an emp?

>>9117144

Doesn't really have to be very large.
I don't know what kind of explosives ISIS has access to, but even if that thing just contained 500g of nitroglycerin (extremely easy to make, and in the drone it wouldn't subject to shocks causing it to accidentally detonate, so it becomes viable) it would be more than enough to kill anyone in a 10-20m radius.

500g is less than the weight of a decent reflex camera, and you see those mounted to drones all the time.

>>9117092

>Creating AI killer robots is automatizing killing humans. Let me say that again, they're trying to automate the process of killing human beings. If that doesn't send a shiver down you're spine maybe you already are a robot.

There's an episode of Stargate about this.
An alien race eventually takes this to the next level, and they remove the whole physical aspect from war.
"War" is fought between the two factions entirely on the grounds of a computer simulation.
The people who are killed in the simulation are handed over to the enemy and executed, without any physical destruction or real resource depletion.
This causes the conflict to drag on for decades and decades, as casualties become nothing more than numbers in a largely ignored statistic.

>>9117131
get fucked singularityfags, nature wins again!

>>9117459
you say "all you need is.." and what follows requires extremely fucking complex compsci solutions

File: ISIS suicide bombers car explode in MID-AIR after getting bombed.webm (2MB, 426x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 426x240px

>>9124096
They have access to pretty much everything except nukes simply due to how easy it is to make most anything now. They also have access to typical blackmarket shit which can be pretty impressive.

>>9124567
You can download stuff like that now online from robotics websites. If you know what you are doing, you can cobble together just about anything. There's nothing stopping anyone except money and the want to do it.

>>9124690
>They have access to pretty much everything except nukes simply due to how easy it is to make most anything now
I mean, making explosives, buying cars and armament is obviously very easy, even if your country is in a war... right? it's not like they are being/have been financed by other govts (including the US govt), right?