• Pennomi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    Whoever bans them will be at a disadvantage militarily. They will never be banned for this one reason alone.

    • catloaf@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      I’m guessing the major countries will ban them, but still develop the technology, let other countries start using it, then say “well everyone else is using it so now we have to as well”. Just like we’re seeing with mini drones in Ukraine. The US is officially against automated attacks, but we’re supporting a country using them, and we’re developing full automation for our own aircraft.

    • Telorand@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 months ago

      I think you’re conflating a ban to include banning their production (not an unreasonable assumption). As we’ve seen with nukes, however, possession of a banned weapon is sometimes as good as using it.

    • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Whoever bans them will be at a disadvantage militarily.

      …and exactly this way of thinking will one day create “Skynet”.

      We need to be (or become) smarter than that!

      Otherwise mankind is doomed.

      • Pennomi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Unfortunately this is basic game theory, so the “smart” thing is to have the weapons, but avoid war.

        Once we’ve grown past war, we can disarm, but it couldn’t happen in the opposite order.

        • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Once we’ve grown past war,

          But what until then? Your ideas do not provide any solutions. You just say that it is unavoidable as it is.

        • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          “Basic game theory” says we should destroy this wacko system. jfc.

          TBH these kinds of sloppy arguments are a big part of why game theory is a joke. It’s fine as math (apart from misleading terminology) but a major problem is applying it to situations that are definitely not “games”.

          For example killer robots are not a game in any mathematically meaningful sense. The situation has been to be maximally simplified into a game between two people in order to reduce the situation into a simplistic analogy. This is neither science nor math. It’s no reason to condone killer robots.

      • Pennomi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yeah totally agree. The general population almost never wants to go to war - the plutocrats do.

        Once we take care of our own corrupt governance I suspect wars will rapidly disappear, and then weapons will likewise disappear.

    • Angry_Autist (he/him)@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Once combat AI exceeds humans:

      A ban to all war, globally. Those that violate the ban will have autonomous soldier deployed on their soil.

      This is the only way it will work, no other path leads to a world without autonomous warbots. We can ban them all we want but there will be some terrorist cell with access to arduinos that can do the same in a garage. And China will never follow such a ban