I'm more optimistic. I think filling battlefields with autonomous weapons will make humans obsolete there and reduce war causalities. Basically any attack on humans is going to be a war crime and terrorism akin to attacks on civilians russia is doing right now

▲

kragen 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Well, suppose you have two countries at war, say, Burnia and Hevonia. They each produce a million autonomous weapons.

Burnia sends their million autonomous weapons to kill the million people they judge are most crucial to Hevonia's war effort, prioritizing Hevonia's political leadership and military officers.

Hevonia, meanwhile, sends their million autonomous weapons to destroy Burnia's autonomous weapons, when they can find them, but not to attack any humans.

Who wins the war?

I think Burnia does, because even if Hevonia's weapons are 99% effective, Hevonia's government has still lost its top ten thousand people, including all of their military officers, while Burnia has only lost half a billion dollars. That's going to make it impossible for Hevonia to keep fighting. And I think 50% effective is more likely.

▲

scotty79 2 days ago | parent [-]

It's the same question as when one opponent is ready to nuke enemy cities while the other is not. In theory everything turns out the same way you postulate. In practice cost of winning the war in this manner might be higher then the cost of losing localized, limited conflict.

▲

kragen a day ago | parent [-]

That's why there's never been a war between two nuclear-armed countries: everybody is shitting in their pants because of exactly that logic. Presumably we'll find out when the PRC invades Taiwan.

However, if that doesn't end up with a radioactive wasteland, we'll probably find out shortly afterwards what happens when every two-bit drug cartel or extortion mafia can cheaply assassinate anyone, anywhere in the world, with an ambush drone.

▲

scotty79 a day ago | parent [-]

> However, if that doesn't end up with a radioactive wasteland, we'll probably find out shortly afterwards what happens when every two-bit drug cartel or extortion mafia can cheaply assassinate anyone, anywhere in the world, with an ambush drone.

I wonder what's stopping them right now. They used drones to smuggle drugs already.

	▲	kragen 15 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Ignorance. More specifically, diffusion of innovations.

▲

lazide 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

That is a really weird take considering how hard Russia (and Ukraine) work to continue to kill humans in the same situation you are describing.

▲

kragen 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Who cares if it's weird? Why are you saying "weird" as if that were a bad thing? It's just a derogatory synonym for "unusual". A take would have to be weird to be a contribution to the conversation, because if it's not weird, it's a widely held opinion we all already know, and nobody gains anything by reading it.

What matters, given that it meets the minimal bar of weirdness to be potentially worthwhile, is whether it's correct. Which depends on what future combatants will do once weaponry actually is autonomous, not what Ukraine and Russia are doing with remotely-piloted FPV drones.

▲

numpad0 2 days ago | parent [-]

I'd call it delusional than weird. US is clearly controlling Ukrainian churn rate so that Russian military and Ukraine as nation burn down at the same rate into disappearance so that the postwar Ukraine can be rebuilt with more Western leaning meatbags from surrounding nations. And some of people here are framing exactly that as utopian bloodless fights of machines. Calling it weird is itself almost weird.

	▲	scotty79 19 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Never attribute to malice something that which is adequately explained by stupidity. It's true that US restrains Ukrainians and the war drags on but US does this out of fear of nuclear war with russia. It's silly, but you have to understand that US for many decades built up the marketing myth of russia as a scary superpower. Only in opposition to this great and strong evil they could see themselves as the great and strong good. To facilitate this they told everyone that russia is strong boogyman so much that they themselves believed it and can't shake off this belief even though russia repeatedly displays how weak and terrible at everything it is.

▲

scotty79 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I think we are in transition period and nations are just learning that sending people to contact line is a terrible idea. People never learned things like that very fast. It often takes a generation.