Modern warfare is already vastly stacked against the poorer side. This has arguably always been the case but it is especially true in the present with billion dollar warships and million dollar jets, missiles, satellites, etc. Not to mention nuclear missiles.
Robots don't change anything. Your evil rich people can just as easily fight the rebels with human flown planes or human guided drones and paid mercenaries.
And please with the "imagine a robot shooting a kid, we can't ever allow that to happen" hypothetical. Soldiers kill innocent people all the time, just on accident. Missiles miss, land mines get abandoned and kill innocent kids, warfare has never been tame. A robot would arguably be better because it might rarely if ever miss, it could have better vision than a human, it could possibly be a better judge than even a human with sufficient AI, and it never gets emotional, angry, or tired or insane.
This is the second time in this thread that you've brought up the shortcomings of current drones as evidence against the use of future robots. And it's the second you've conflated human-operated drones, possessed of little intelligence or ability to learn, with hypothetical fully-autonomous robots.
Would these robots behave better than humans or human-controlled drones? That remains to be seen. But the emphasized shortcomings of current aerial drones are about as relevant to future aerial robots as RC toys are to self-deiving cars. (Much less future ground-based robots, which in uncertain situations might be able to choose a third option besides "shoot to kill" or "fly away".)
Those kids were killed by people radio-controlling bombs, not by autonomous drones.
On the other hand, how many civilians, including kids, have been killed by troops on the ground for motivations such as rape, boredom or robbery? Robots wouldn't have this motivation for useless/counterproductive violence, but some human soldiers unavoidably do.
Comments
Modern warfare is already vastly stacked against the poorer side. This has arguably always been the case but it is especially true in the present with billion dollar warships and million dollar jets, missiles, satellites, etc. Not to mention nuclear missiles.
Robots don't change anything. Your evil rich people can just as easily fight the rebels with human flown planes or human guided drones and paid mercenaries.
And please with the "imagine a robot shooting a kid, we can't ever allow that to happen" hypothetical. Soldiers kill innocent people all the time, just on accident. Missiles miss, land mines get abandoned and kill innocent kids, warfare has never been tame. A robot would arguably be better because it might rarely if ever miss, it could have better vision than a human, it could possibly be a better judge than even a human with sufficient AI, and it never gets emotional, angry, or tired or insane.
Well then what aout all the children killed by drones[1]?
[1] http://droneswatch.org/2013/01/20/list-of-children-killed-by...
This is the second time in this thread that you've brought up the shortcomings of current drones as evidence against the use of future robots. And it's the second you've conflated human-operated drones, possessed of little intelligence or ability to learn, with hypothetical fully-autonomous robots.
Would these robots behave better than humans or human-controlled drones? That remains to be seen. But the emphasized shortcomings of current aerial drones are about as relevant to future aerial robots as RC toys are to self-deiving cars. (Much less future ground-based robots, which in uncertain situations might be able to choose a third option besides "shoot to kill" or "fly away".)
Those kids were killed by people radio-controlling bombs, not by autonomous drones.
On the other hand, how many civilians, including kids, have been killed by troops on the ground for motivations such as rape, boredom or robbery? Robots wouldn't have this motivation for useless/counterproductive violence, but some human soldiers unavoidably do.