datsci_est_2015 21 hours ago

> Hypothetically if we had a choice between sending in humans to war or sending in fully autonomous drones that make decisions on par with humans, the moral choice might well be the drones - because it doesn't put our service members.

I guess let the record state that I am deeply morally opposed to automated killing of any kind.

I am sick to my stomach when I really try to put myself in the shoes of the indigenous peoples of Africa who were the first victims of highly automatic weapons, “machine guns” or “Gatling guns”. The asymmetry was barbaric. I do hope that there is a hell, simply that those who made the decision to execute en masse those peoples have a place to rot in internal hellfire.

To even think of modernizing that scene of inhumane depravity with AI is despicable. No, I am deeply opposed to automated killing of any kind.

▲

nickff 21 hours ago | parent [-]

The Gatling Gun was first deployed in the US civil war, not in Africa. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatling_gun

The “machine gun” has a more complicated history, and the first practical example may have been Gatling’s, or an earlier example used in Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_gun

▲

datsci_est_2015 12 hours ago | parent [-]

Forgive me I got the detail wrong. If your point was to deny that my imagined scenario never happened, read this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxim_gun

▲

nickff 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Basically all types of weapons have been used in all sorts of conflicts; the British used aircraft in their mandates, and the Italians used chemical weapons in Ethiopia. That said, I am not aware of any weapon which was developed specifically for use against a less technologically advanced adversary, most novel weapons are developed for use against peer-adversaries.

	▲	datsci_est_2015 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> That said, I am not aware of any weapon which was developed specifically for use against a less technologically advanced adversary, most novel weapons are developed for use against peer-adversaries. This is a strange take that I didn’t expect to hear. I suppose that the strongest defensive systems do require the most sophisticated offensive systems to defeat, in theory. But there exists asymmetry there as well ($50k drone destroys $1B radar). My take on weapons development is that there were plenty of mass killing (or mass punishment) devices developed specifically for use by colonial powers against indigenous peoples. This happened alongside weapons development for weapons intended for, as you put them, peer-adversaries. Revolts happened, and colonial powers needed effective ways to keep indigenous peoples enslaved.