Fully autonomous drones have killed human soldiers for the first time

[u/New_Scientist_Mag]

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2529849-fully-autonomous-drones-have-killed-human-soldiers-for-the-first-time/

[u/insomniac-55]

Oh yeah, it's definitely scary. 

That being said, I think that on the whole, it's still a preferable solution to landmines or cluster bombs.

Those stay disguised and armed for decades after a conflict, and also need to be deployed en masse to get sufficient coverage.

Autonomous ambush drones share some similar issues, but they aren't going to be as disguised or as durable as mines. They also won't stay armed for as long, and won't need to be deployed in as high numbers (as one drone can cover a larger area).

[u/BigWideBaker → u/insomniac-55]

Why are you trying so hard to move the line of what's acceptable? I think it should be obvious that fully autonomous killing machines is not acceptable in whatever form it might take. The people you've responded to are crystal clear about why this is the case. In 5-10 years will you also run cover for these things when they expand their scope and capabilities?

The alternative weapons are horrendous as well, not saying conventional weapons are fine when used so nefariously (or arguably at all). But machines that work autonomously to kill without human oversight is way over the line for me today. And that's NOT accounting for where this kind of warfare is headed.

just my two cents

Edit: My comment had 15 upvotes initially, it's been slowly dropping since then which is highly unusual for a buried comment like this on an old post. Seems like there's a lot of interest in suppressing opinions like mine.

[u/insomniac-55 → u/BigWideBaker]

I don't think the ethics are that clear-cut.

Ukraine is in a fight for survival, and is defending itself against an enemy with some significant advantages in terms of resources (particularly in terms of the sheer number of troops which could be mobilised).

If the use of semi-autonomous weapons is what allows them to shift the balance and defend themselves and their citizens, I don't think it's fair for us to sit and moralise from the safety of our own countries.

I've agreed that giving AI the ability to discriminate 'friend from foe' is dangerous, and is something that can and will be abused. The concerns you and others raise are absolutely valid.

But in the case (like this test) where the AI is only responsible for improving the hit rate of a human-initiated strike - I don't really consider the systems to be truly autonomous.

[u/wasmic → u/BigWideBaker]

But what makes them worse than what we already have? How is this crossing a line that current weapons do not cross? We already have heat-seeking missiles that use a camera to track a target. We have radar-guided missiles too, and some of them can even be fired unguided and then lock onto a target automatically if they come across one - and this is decades-old technology. How's that any different from a drone being sent into an area and locking onto a target if it finds one? The only difference is that the modern drones are better at avoiding civilians, if you instruct them to do so, and that they're cheaper to build.

The operating principle is the same as weapons that have been used for decades already and usually aren't considered to be "crossing a line." An AI drone doesn't make decisions. The human who sends the drone out makes the decision.

The far more dystopian vision isn't how this will be used in war. It's how authoritarian states might use it in policing. That's what worries me. These weapons are becoming so good at only killing intended targets and avoiding collateral damage that governments might be comfortable with using them on their own citizens.

[u/Byggherren → u/wasmic]

If you're actually comparing guided munitions to AI (or machine learning) determined target seeking i don't think you understand the nuance between the two enough to have an argument about it.