Fully autonomous drones have killed human soldiers for the first time
6d 18h ago by lemmy.world/u/EatingOnions in world from www.newscientist.com
A senior figure in the Ukrainian defence industry told New Scientist that a test took place two years ago involving fully autonomous drones set to destroy anything in a given area, with confirmed casualties
2 years ago š
dontthinkaboutit.dontthinkaboutit.dontthinkaboutit.dontthinkaboutit.dontthinkaboutit.
you roll your eyes while most others are sweating profusely
Militaries are famously secretive.
The one-off test involved 10 AI-controlled āTerminatorā drones on the front line of the Ukraine war.
Military training exists to brainwash decent human beings with a sense of morality and critical thinking abilities, who know they mustn't kill and would refuse requests to kill, into killing machines who are proud to follow orders (and then experience PTSD when they're returned to civilian life and realize what they've done).
Therefore, I contend that fully autonomous drones have killed human beings since wars have been a thing, and those drones are called "soldiers".
Fun and interesting take, as far as commentary on soldiers.
These new fully autonomous drones though, are able to be mass produced by Capital. That's the important difference. It means that there is a nascent way, to bypass the need to have a country with high births to fuel a war machine, and you can just more easily Capital your way to domination.
And that's kinda scary.
are able to be mass produced by Capital
So are soldiers, to be fair.
Luckily we donāt live in a world yet where capital can make those drones without labor. Until we do they will still need the populace as a whole.
I can barely see you up there on that high horse.
This is factually inaccurate.
A much better predictor for PTSD is crimes against humanity committed. Killing in war, when necessary is almost "free".
Killing in war, when necessary is almost āfreeā.
It's thinking like that that's the reason war still exists. Everybody thinks killing is awful, apart in certain circumstances when it's okay, when it's in fact never okay.
Killing the Russians executing your dad and raping your mom is not ok?
Killing the Israeli soldier shooting indescriminately at children is not ok?
User name checks out.
I was specifically talking about PTSD. War exists for real world reasons. Most of which aren't a desire for human suffering. A worldview of good and evil just doesn't do reality justice and discards the human suffering caused by your and anyone's actions.
No, the psychological training to get people to kill each other without thinking is new. Before the 1960's it was common for soldiers to purposely miss. The desensitising and psychological training of shooting at human targets without thinking changed modern warfare and turned people into killing machines.
This is why I stopped playing ARC. Felt like it was just conditioning to prefer shooting-on-sight than being friendly. That or being a sociopath and lying and shooting someone in the back.
Neither of which are properties I like to even play pretend having.
You're very correct in your comment, btw. Nowadays US uses methods that condition people so well that the shoot-to-kill amount of soldiers is like ~95%. In WWII (and everything preceding it) it was roughly 2% of men who were quite literally psychopaths (not in the criminal sense, but a sense of being able to turn off their empathy, many surgeons and ceos belong to this group of ppl). Only <25% of soldiers in a position to fire at the enemy actually shot at them. About 1% of US fighter pilots accounted for ~50% their kills.
Lindybeige has what I think is a fairly good video on the subject.
Have you been listening to Muse by chance?
Nope these make the choices. Ai driven 99.999%
When deployed, the drone is launched into a designated hunt-zone. It navigates purely via visual landmarks. The onboard AI constantly screens the video feed. When an object matches its classification matrix (e.g., a specific mobile missile launcher), the system locks onto the pixel coordinate, arms the ESAD, and executes a terminal dive completely independent of human input.
This tightly integrated anatomy of Edge Compute + Computer Vision + Modular Lethality is what defines the reality of autonomous robotic warfare today.
That's what they're saying:
When deployed, the soldier is launched into a designated hunt-zone. He navigates purely via visual landmarks. His brain constantly screens the nerve data from his eyes. When an object matches its classification matrix (e.g., a specific mobile missile launcher), the organism locks onto the pixel coordinate, arms the ESAD, and executes a terminal dive completely dependent on human input.
I don't understand are you agreeing with me or quoting me because that's not from the article, that's from my Ai prompt that I run through gemini and then ask questions.
You didn't understand that they took your comment and applied it to a human instead of a computerized drone?
I mean, they used AI to generate their last comment. If there were ever a good example of AI eroding the capability for thought...
Instead of letting the large language model think for you, I would suggest to try critical thinking for yourself. I sincerely mean this in a kind way, because if you continue with this, you may become a drone like the ones we talk about here, and I wish that on nobody. I know this current path is easier/more convenient, but sometimes one has to choose the harder path to arrive at a better result.
I don't let things think for me I made the prompt that it had to run off of. It wasn't I asked it the anatomy and it gave me that. I had to trick it.
Lol. Okay buddy
Ask it: the anatomy of a terminator drone, the ones we use in Ukraine not the movie.
You won't get what I got.
I dunno if you can tell, but I'm fundamentally against the waste of resources that are LLMs. No thanks.
You didn't understand that they took your comment and applied it to a human instead of a computerized drone?
Ah, splendid. We are barreling towards the Forever Winter nicely.
Maybe we should build a few dozen silos.
51 would be a good number
But why the 51st š¤
Spoiler
Silo TV show/books
IIRC the additional one was to control the rest
You donāt often get a military holding a press conference to announce it has committed a war crime.
Eh. I see this as an "flying landmine," not an existential Terminator kind of thing.
A computer is not making a "decision" to kill. Its a machine. It's bomb exploding when triggered, just with extra steps of flying to a specific spot.
It's morally problematic. Like landmines.
But I think people are falsly attributing anything resembling sentience to this system, like they do with conversation-trained LLMs. Humans made the ādecisionā way ahead of time, just like when they set up land mines or perform a bombing run.
You can, to some extent, avoid an undiscriminating minefield. You can, to some extent, plead for mercy from the jack boot kicking in your door. You cannot avoid or plead with a mine flying through your bedroom window.
You canāt plead with a missile either. Nor a camouflaged IED.
Iām not saying itās morale. Itās not.
Iām just saying this isnāt a case of āan artificial intelligence pulling the trigger.ā It is not āfully autonomousā kill in the way the headline insinuates. This is a toaster preprogrammed to explode, autonomously.
In fact, Iād argue itās a dangerous characterization, as it removes some culpability from whoever setup the kill drone, like the equipment made a decision. The equipment did not make the decision, its operator did.
I fail to see your point. Yes weapons kill people. But no weapon in history could
- be cheaply dispersed over populated areas
- linger for hours or potentially days
- patrol and chase targets into any kind of cover
- instantly and autonomously take offensive action outside of any chain of command
Did you read the article? The equipment does make the decision. That's the whole point. One remote operator vibe-killing scores of people extremely efficiently. Yes there's a human deciding to put the drones in flight but why would that remove culpability any more than collateral damage from a traditional explosive?
By your logic, nukes exist so there's no reason to worry about any other types of war crime.
Thatās what Iām trying to reiterate. Iām not saying we shouldnāt worry about it. This is horrific.
But itās not Terminator. Itās further extended drone warfare.
Thereās a very important distinction between this, and some kind of cognizant machine that starts in a relatively neutral state and decides to kill certain targets, like (say) the corpo robots one often sees in cyberpunk fiction. One that has agency to set that up in the first place.
I see a lot of correlation between fictional war bots, tech bro āAI,ā and this kind of drone warfare, and they are all completely unrelated. The most sophisticated thing going on here is a CV guidance system dumber than many missiles, and I just donāt want to muddy the waters with any kind of assertion that these weapons have any sapience, that weāve āoffloadedā the decision to kill. Itās just a very immoral weapon, indeed very detached from deployment.
I'm glad they, allegedly, stopped after the one test. This sounds an awful lot like a war crime on Ukraine's part. Enemy combatants (especially since we know most of Russia's army are being trafficked) need the opportunity to surrender peacefully.
Pretty sure it's not a war crime yet. Damn sure it should be. Human in the loop. Update Geneva conventions.
As if having a human in the loop would make slaughtering people more humanitarian. How many reports have we read of soldiers from any power perpetrating horrendous acts on enemy combatants, or worse, civilians?
I agree that murder without prejudice should be curtailed if at all possible and that autonomous robots are not likely to accept surrender, but it's not like human agressors are always open to it either.
Not saying it's good, or humanitarian. War crimes don't stop war (much as I would prefer it all to be called murder rather than state sanctioned violence). The Geneva accords create a bottom level of godawful that is unacceptable that the various militaries agree on. Hopefully it helps protects civilians and soldiers both. AI weapons are a plausible existential threat, they should be treated as such, also, importantly, they are also a vector for plausible deniability.
'Humans in the loop' could also provide a level of friction that might make atrocities less common as the commanders cover their asses by putting responsibility on those lower down in the hierarchy, who might choose not to. The only reason nuclear war didn't happen in the 60s was one person saying NO
Of course, the US is (likely) currently bombing civilian water supplies, so we need to drag ourselves back up to basic humanity (and yes, humanity is anything but basic as history attends).
the US is (likely) currently bombing civilian water supplies,
This needs to be addressed criminally later.
Hague invasion act
One can hope.
I think that's really what it all comes down to, is the lack of surrender by a system that could eventually be able to make choices on the fly. You're right though, in the end it's not more humanitarian by any means. I suppose it removes a little bit of the sting and I guess If you're able to pull off the mental gymnastics of being able to convince yourself that a computer program taking out a bunch of people in one go is less of a burden to carry on the conscious but I bet it's a lot to carry for those that have to program and command the actions to happen and for the ones that actually have to engage with those systems.
In this role, it should already be covered under the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention IMO.
Drones that kill anyone entering an area are just more sophisticated land mines.
Perhaps (and the uncertainty is part of the problem), but a more general scope is needed. If it's AI arguments will be made that no-one is responsible. Someone should be responsible for people getting killed, and justify themselves if needed, and face consequences if they cannot.
It is covered by the Geneva Conventions, which makes indiscriminate killing a war crime.
thus a massive waste money and resources and probably has worse PR than just planting mines.
Like everything to do with AI, AI weapons are 100 percent being pushed by monied interests rather than actual usefulness.
Indiscriminate killing is a war crime, and they have just admitted to it.
If you send an indiscriminate killing machine into an area with only enemy combatants, it's not exactly that indiscriminate. Worst case scenario it fails to detonate and becomes a hazard on the ground, but Ukraine is already saturated with landmines.
Sweet summer child, no they did not stop. And these things move fast and attack fast, just like missiles; there's no time for surrender.
Sweet summer child
It's been years, no one watches that anymore.
maybe simply this didn't work well enough for it to be worth the effort. there were already surrenders to drones (rare) there's no reason why automated drone couldn't do it as well
No, there's been advances in the program since its inception. They're still in use.
Yeah, let's hope we don't make a habit out of this. Landmines are already bad enough.
The only thing that could have stopped this would have been the lower classes, worldwide, becoming a unified front for the last century or more. These killbots are not only here, already and being used, they will become the default within 5 years. Watch.
None of the world's governments have lifted a finger in the last year of continuous, televised genocides of civilians, women, the elderly, and children. They certainly aren't going to draw a line in the sand for unseen killbots that nebulously might be responsible for some civilian deaths at some point in the future.
Not only will these be used in war, these will be used in civilian life too. How do you think the world's wealthy plan to stay that way?
They know very well that in the past when inequality has risen to these levels, they fall. They know it's because no guards will chose them over the mass of, now angry, people that the guards were birthed from and spent their lives with.
The killbots are for you and me baby. It is already written.
Hey, weapons have been banned before. (And continuous genocide is kind of just the normal situation globally)
That being said, yes, a fully autonomous, self-supporting army would have massive, terrifying social implications. Few people are talking about it, but it has to be the biggest existential threat we're facing over the next century or two.
This sounds like it's just a drone that chases anything that moves wherever it's deployed, though, not something more nefarious. Against a known, unarmed target shelling would achieve the same thing.
Weapons have been banned before, but nukes are the only things that actually don't get used. A ban on automous weapons will require the same situation. A country is going to have to kill hundreds of thousands, or millions of people at once, and then everyone will have to stockpile these as a deterrent against use.
Even then, that's just against other countries. Nobody stops nations from doing anything and everything to the citizens they own.
To your second point about shelling, I disagree. This is different in extremely important ways. These are cheaper to create, easier to run in undetected, and do far far less collateral damage.
They are also a relatively new technology. You could have looked at the first muskets and said "definitely an advantage, but not an insane amount compared to seasoned archers and siege equipment. We can't really compare unguided munitions in their highly evolved form, to autonomous drones that are just getting started.
Weapons have been banned before, but nukes are the only things that actually donāt get used.
Well, you don't hear a lot about blinding weapons or biological agents these days.
You could have looked at the first muskets and said "definitely an advantage, but not an insane amount compared to seasoned archers and siege equipment.
That's a great example. You know what happened after muskets fully took over? The age of absolutism gave way to the age of revolution.
Like, both drones and muskets are real, game-changing innovation, but how they effect the geopolitical equilibrium is a complicated question. I'm reminded of some of the WWI-era designers who though a more deadly weapon would mean a shorter, more humane war. In practice it meant a very different, long-standoff battlefield, and a much slower war.
To that point:
These are cheaper to create, easier to run in undetected, and do far far less collateral damage.
Shells are really cheap, like as cheap or cheaper than a drone, undetectability is valid, but actually favours the little guy, and collateral damage depends. Some shrapnel marks on one hand vs. a localised explosion on the other. You don't want to shell a big thin-walled tank or pipe, but on a normal building the drone may actually be more destructive.
So basically, this is an interesting development and different from a shell for sure, nobody's denying that. But, that it favours central, autocratic power does not directly follow.
You are an incredibly optimistic summer child.
you don't hear a lot about blinding weapons or biological agents
Blinding agents aren't that effective in warfare. Chemical agents do get used, especially on civilians. Biological weapons are a big risk relative to much more tested, targeted, conventional munitions. At the end of the day, flying an explosion at the other guy has always been the winning strategy, and still is to some extent.
The age of absolutism gave way to the age of revolution.
Ah yes, when you could drop off a few boxes of guns to some revolutionaries and they would be near untrackable in dense urban or wide rural settings.
Now, your revolutionary drone operator saves you the trouble of tracking by broadcasting his location, assuming he hasn't already been sighted on your universal surveillance cameras or been swept up by irregular purchasing habits.
Shells are really cheap...
By dollars per kill, drones blow them out of the water. You need a big, pricey, vulnerable piece of machinery to target your shells. Your target will more than likely move or take a covered position once the shells drop. And obviously you need a spotting system for this as well (probably a drone anyway).
On average, for your light artillery it might take 8-10 shells to kill a target. That's why they're not precision killing equipment and are better used for flattening defenses or pinning down groups of people.
A drone just needs some piloting, human or otherwise. So you're comparing 10 shells from a trained team out of specialized firing position with a calibrated gun vs. one guy with two drones in a backpack.
So when you stack up any belligerents [state vs state/non-state], the key math is who can deploy more drones from better positions with better range/targeting, better tactical intelligence and keep pressure over a longer period. A state actor will always have the advantage there.
It seems like "summer child" implies you yourself have experienced any of these possibilities. At the end of the day we're both making educated guesses about the future.
You need a big, pricey, vulnerable piece of machinery to target your shells.
Are we talking about a dispersed group of guerillas, or a Le Mis street uprising kind of thing? If conflict ever happens the latter way is very debatable, but usually when someone talks about the people against the rich/elites/whatever, that's what's in mind.
In the guerillas case, shelling is very situational, you're right. So is a motion-tracking drone. It's cheap and portable, but there's also a lot more countermeasures to it, and they're both ultimately for area denial (or similar). In the end, a whole lot is riding on some human-level intelligence deciding who to target, particularly if you're doing COIN, and that brings you back to piloted drones or small arms.
In the Le Mis case, the gun itself isn't vulnerable, and you can assume every shell kills at least one person. This exact thing has happened, and I've never heard it described as a major expense for the government side. It goes at least as far back as Napoleon; being the one general willing to take grapeshot to protesters was his big break.
Now, your revolutionary drone operator saves you the trouble of tracking by broadcasting his location, assuming he hasnāt already been sighted on your universal surveillance cameras or been swept up by irregular purchasing habits.
The safe-er way would involve fibre or wires, either to an attritable antenna or to the drone itself. Maybe just getting TFO before a counterattack can arrive would work. It sounds like that's frequently the situation in Ukraine, even though it seems really risky.
The surveillance networks could be bad, if the many gaps fill in. That's not about drones though.
So when you stack up any belligerents [state vs state/non-state], the key math is who can deploy more drones from better positions with better range/targeting, better tactical intelligence and keep pressure over a longer period. A state actor will always have the advantage there.
That can be the logic of a fight with guns or muskets as well. Clearly, sometimes the ability to blend with the population beats better positioning.
There's officers who think drones are entirely overblown, and Ukraine is the way it is because of the kind of battlefield and the exact asymmetry between the sides. Maybe they're wrong, but the next big thing in warfare has turned out to be vapourware before.
This isn't speculation about the future, this stuff has been going on for decades. This is the culmination of armed UAV strikes in 2002; this is the Patriot Act and the war on terror. We have been experiencing this. What we're just witnessing now is the tipping point taking us past the point of no return.
Drones cheap enough to swarm; bioidentification advanced enough to ID crowds of dissidents; computer imaging refined over decades; drones being deployed as "public safety first responders"; live fire conflicts brought to a standstill by even the most rudimentary combat drones; advertising and big tech perfecting digital fingerprinting over decades; legislation being pushed to require OS-level user ID; mandated surveillance in new cars & ALPRs; restrictions on 3D printers...
Despite the show of ignorance, every state actor has known where the wind is blowing for a long time. They know that the pendulum for disruptive tech is swinging in the direction of accessibility for the public, and they've gotten out faaar ahead of that.
We're not talking about wiretaps and secret police acting on human intel. We're into automated surveillance tech feeding directly into pre-crime hueristics agencies where an instant and proportional response can be dispatched. Despite how comforting it feels to be one of a hundred million in a crowd, your life and actions are trivial to quantify and track.
The only thing that caught people off guard was how effective hybrid warfare is, specifically at sowing discord. "Wait and see" is a sentiment 30+ years too late. Geopolitics & domestic surveillance are going into a deep existential gridlock, probably until climate collapse makes drone production unsustainable.
You give politicians way more credit than is due. And more malice, honestly. The ones I know like shiny things and a platform, and are comfortable with deceit, but are otherwise just people.
There are no great conspiracies, and nobody's really predetermining anything. The potential and some of the infrastructure is there for a very abusable surveillance state, but as it is Western governments have mostly accessed it passively, and illegal things are able to happen all the time. Meanwhile, civil rights concerns are heard in the halls of power, and sometimes make progress, like with GDPR.
The problem with land mines is that they exist after the conflict.
And now... they can fly
Easier to spot than one underground.
They can turn them off though right?
Right?!
TBF land mines that deactivate themself after a few weeks are a thing now as well.
I guess a market killbot field wouldn't be too much different during the conflict. It has the same indiscriminate nature for sure, though, and soft targets with no point defences like civilians will be extra vulnerable.
Thing is that both are currently being used it droves in Ukraine. About anything bar chemical or nuclear has.
Instead of stepping in the wrong place, someone runs an antivirus on an old system in eleven years and accidentally triggers a murder bot to fly out and pop some music teacher walking their dog
Even setting aside any apocalyptic scenarios, this is bad. You used to have to look your enemy in the eyes and stab them. Then you just had to see them from afar and shoot them. Now you don't have to acknowledge them at all.
Most of the casualties were from bombers for a long time already, this is that but one step removed.
It's bad for a different reason, you in this case don't exist anymore. We used to have people killing people, now there are autonomous robots doing this, and that's a new, completely different class of warfare.
The scariest thing is, autonomous "soldiers" can do what bombers cannot: Go building-to-building and door-to-door.
The cost and risk of urban engagements and "boots on the ground" was usually the final commitment of warfare.
Even before bombers existed for every person killed on a battlefield a ton of people who didn't see a single enemy soldier died because that army had destroyed or used up the region's food supplies or introduced a new disease or diverted a river's water.
Yeah, and also, many political leaders just say, "kill your enemies," and the deed gets done nowadays. I'm pretty sure that's been the case for a long time too.
Exactly
Hasn't anyone seen Screamers (1995)? Or read Second Variety?
7 years, only becoming more plausible.
I ā¤ļø Dick
Hello, fellow Dickhead! Autonomous weapons working beyond their creators is a constant recurring theme, even features in one of his first few short stories: The Gun by PKD in 1952.
Ty!
Headline is somewhat misleading, article is based off an admission from a Ukrainian military officer about a test that happened two years ago.
We are SO over due for revolution.
Russia or Ukraine?
No video? They did not know what the Ai chose until it sent a manned vehicle to check it out. That's extraordinarily concerning.
I suppose that's the point of it - no comms at all so can't be jammed.
In the current landscape of military technology, what the public conceptually calls "terminator drones" refers to Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWS), One-Way Attack (OWA) uncrewed aerial systems, and Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA).
Because modern electronic warfare (EW) can instantly sever radio control and jam GPS, these systems cannot rely on a human pilot or cloud computing. They are designed as self-contained, edge-computing robotic hunters.
The physical and technological anatomy of a modern autonomous combat drone is categorized into five core systems:
1. The Neural Architecture (Edge AI Compute Core)
The "brain" is no longer a simple autopilot board; it is an onboard AI accelerator optimized for computer vision and localized decision-making.
- The System-on-Chip (SoC): Military-grade edge AI processors (such as ruggedized variants of the Nvidia Jetson Orin series or custom ASICs) capable of executing hundreds of Trillions of Operations Per Second (TOPS).
- The Local Model Stack: Instead of connecting to an external server, the drone carries local, highly compressed convolutional neural networks (CNNs). These models are trained on massive synthetic datasets to immediately recognize, classify, and track military hardware (tanks, radar dishes, infantry) even when camouflaged or partially obscured.
2. The Sensor Suite (The Perception Layer)
To operate in "denied environments" where GPS is jammed, the drone relies on a fused sensory array to build an internal map of the world.
- Electro-Optical/Infrared (EO/IR) Gimbals: High-resolution thermal and visual cameras that feed raw video directly into the AI computer vision core.
- Optical Flow & Visual Inertial Odometry (VIO): Downward-facing cameras that track the movement of the ground pixel-by-pixel. Combined with an Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU), VIO allows the drone to navigate with pinpoint accuracy by "looking" at the terrain, rendering GPS entirely unnecessary.
- Solid-State LiDAR / Micro-Radar: Used for low-altitude obstacle avoidance and capturing the 3D geometry of a target during the terminal attack phase.
3. The EW-Resistant Communications & Swarm Mesh
When drones operate collectively, they utilize decentralized mesh networking.
- Software-Defined Radios (SDR): Radios that dynamically hop across thousands of frequencies per second to evade electronic jamming.
- Inter-Drone Mesh Networking: The drones communicate directly with each other rather than a ground station. If Drone-A detects an air defense system, it instantly updates the target coordinates across the entire swarm mesh. If Drone-A is destroyed, the remaining swarm automatically re-allocates mission roles dynamically.
4. Modular Airframe & Propulsion
Modern mass-production initiatives (like the Pentagonās Drone Dominance program) prioritize cost-effective, modular structures over exquisite, expensive aerospace frames.
- Materials: Carbon fiber composites or high-density 3D-printed polymers designed for rapid assembly.
- Propulsion: High-KV brushless electric motors powered by solid-state or high-capacity Lithium-Polymer (LiPo) batteries for small, tactical, low-signature loitering. Larger variants utilize small gas turbines or hybrid-rotary engines for extended range.
- Signatures: The geometry is explicitly shaped to minimize both Radar Cross-Section (RCS) and acoustic signatures, allowing them to approach targets completely undetected until the final seconds.
5. The Integrated Kinetic Payload (The Warhead)
Modern military philosophy dictates that an attack drone is not just a vehicle carrying a bombāthe drone is the weapon. New architectures utilize highly specialized, plug-and-play modular payloads (such as the Terminus or Common UAS Payload designs).
- Electronic Safe and Arm Devices (ESAD): Microprocessor-controlled safety systems that keep the warhead completely inert until the onboard AI confirms a positive target lock and enters the terminal dive.
- Directional Frag/Shaped Charges: Optimized to direct the explosive energy entirely forward into the target upon impact, maximizing lethality while minimizing the structural weight the drone has to carry.
The Functional Workflow (The Autonomy Loop)
[ Launch ] ā [ Visual Navigation (No GPS) ] ā [ Onboard AI Target Detection ]
ā
[ Terminal Engagement ] š² [ Local Target Classification & Tracking ] āāāāāā
When deployed, the drone is launched into a designated hunt-zone. It navigates purely via visual landmarks. The onboard AI constantly screens the video feed. When an object matches its classification matrix (e.g., a specific mobile missile launcher), the system locks onto the pixel coordinate, arms the ESAD, and executes a terminal dive completely independent of human input.
This tightly integrated anatomy of Edge Compute + Computer Vision + Modular Lethality is what defines the reality of autonomous robotic warfare today.
Thanks, ChatGPT.
No it's a custom Gemini prompt persona.
No one cares.
If I wanted AI answers, I can ask AI myself.
Stop spamming this slop.
Ok.
Butlerian Jihad when?
Slaughterbots - If human: kill() explores the consequences of this.
It seems intriguing but is this channel legit or just a spooky clickbait kinda thing? The thumbnails didn't inspire much confidence but also, I know it's YouTube and you gotta play the game. (eyeroll)
I've never heard of this org before though.
slaughterbots was a concept video about a dark future of small drone assasins that hold basically one bullet and would look to land on teh victims forhead and fire it. It scary as heck because it is so achievable to do with technology over a decade a go and just more achievable today.
They tried it, saw that it worked, and took a step back.
These days, drones with neural network based machine vision (ability to recognize targets) phone home to an operator and request a permission to attack.
The interesting bit: it is within the capability of one well-informed and well-motivated engineer or coder to create such systems. It doesn't require a megacorps.
Then again, nothing new: mine-laying was previously within the capability of one person too. Now the mines just fly, swim or drive, and may consider on their own.
Countermeasures - blinding the device, shooting it down with an interceptor which is a bit more agile but is allowed to be considerably more dumb (in air defense, you typically have a clear target), possibly also bricking it with an electromagnetic pulse (at short range, so less than optimal). Installing nets over anything and everything. Painting false targets on random stuff and confusing patterns on real targets.
Thanks chatgpt
Why waste your time posting slop?
I'm surprised there aren't more Ukraine defenders attempting to justify this unjustifiable war crime and step towards total extinction of humanity.
Edit: The nazis have arrived.
Russia needs to get the fuck out of Ukraine
No disagreement there, maybe Ukraine should fight their own battles though and not commit horrific war crimes and crimes against humanity to do so? Maybe Ukraine shouldn't introduce autonomous murder drones that are objectively incapable of making the required determinations in the Geneva Convention regarding legitimate military targets? Maybe Ukraine shouldn't give people a reason to hate it when they have such good PR from Russia's illegal invasion?
Maybe Russia should get the fuck out of Ukraine.
Reread, try again.
No, I fully understood what you were trying to say. I am disagreeing and pointing out that everything you said remains irrelevant as it could literally all be stopped if Russia would get the fuck out of Ukraine.
Man, I'm on board with calling Ukraine out for their war crimes, as anyone should be called out, who does so.
But now you're just making an ass of yourself.
That's as false an equivalence as it gets. Russia is objectively the aggressor in this conflict, while a Jewish "invasion" into Gemany didn't exist. Not even as an antisemitic fantasy.
I'm not even opposed to making Nazi comparisons, but they better be at least somewhat valid.
False equivalence. Jews belonged where they were, and were part of the german population. In addition, no civilians were injured or targeted. Thus there are no war crimes. I'm not saying I am a fan of even the idea of removing people from killing people, but as the laws are currently written, there is no war crime. War crime is a very specific serious, and well defined thing. Calling things we don't like a war crime dilutes and weakens the very term.
In addition, no civilians were injured or targeted. Thus there are no war crimes.
We literally cannot know that by the way. These things do not have the processing power to tell the difference between a valid combatant, a surrendered combatant, an unarmed medic, or even someone that happens to be just wearing camo to, you know, not be shot during a war.
Oh you sweet innocent troll.... Nice ragebait...
So, in your opinion, war crimes are justifed, as long as the ones committing them didn't start the conflict?
If someone comes into my house and tries to take all my stuff I'm going to kill them.
And I'm not going to consider whether of not I'm doing it in a nice or polite way.
If you invade someone's shit and try to steal it, you will deal with the fallout of that action.
No. Bad drone. Keep up.
If a fire fighter breaks into your house to put out a fire and your autonomous ceiling turret shreds them who's at fault?
Because autonomous drone systems don't care about friend or foe, no AI model is close to good enough for that with all the processing power in the world, much less what can be shoved in any type of airborne drone.
So this is akin to booby trapping your house, leaving your house, and then assuming anyone killed by your trap was a bad guy.
Again, because you fucks don't read RUSSIA IS THE BAD GUY, THEY DID AN ILLEGAL INVASION, ALL CURRENT MILITARY MEMBERS AND LEADERS OF RUSSIA SHOULD BE KILLED.
Now that that's established, deal with the current discussion, not your owner's repeated propaganda tactics.
Things like "keep up" and " you fuckers can't read" make you sound like a grade A collosal dickhead, by the way if that's any concern to you.
I read just fine and see everything you said. Doesn't change anything.
If you invade a country you fuck around and find out what that entails.
They are using them the same way shit is being used against them.
Russia hit the first civilian targets after invading them once that happens all bets are off if you come in to my country and ki my people I am going to murder yours too.
I believe that is the way it has worked for all of history.
And arguments like this present about bombs and shit too historically.
This is simply the way war evolves with the technology at hand. Keep up.
Also firefighter isn't a black masked invader or military group lol your analogy is trash. The "booby trapping" happened after GETTING INVADED. Wasn't there for no reason in the beginning was made as a response TO INVASION. Its simple to understand honestly.
Maybe they ought to just line up in steaight lines again like how they used to do.
And honestly what is it with these guns? You can kill someone a mile away with the right one, how inhumane! How horrible! You can't even see the whites of their eyes this way!
I know man, maybe you can just get them to drop the weapons all together and have a dialogue instead that has always worked I can't think of a single time in history talking it out and not responding to violence with more violence hasn't worked out.
They are using them the same way shit is being used against them.
Incorrect, hence the smug title.
If you invade a country you fuck around and find out what that entails.
Cool so the next time France invades Libya, we should round up all of France's citizens and send them all to death camps. Fuck around and find out right?
Never said they should round up the citizens and put in death camps or suggested it quit being so obtuse.
However, for the sake of understanding I am talking about any citizen from another country that is invading that country then yes they should die that's what happens when you invade shit.
Also yes, I think the French soldiers that are in places like French Polynesia and shit should be expelled one way or another. Violence or voting because in that scenario they would leave if they voted for independence I think they've said this before.
And if France bombs Libya or whatever then abso-fucking-lutely that country should be able to bomb their ass back. Citizens do die during this and its incredible because the way to avoid it is by not bombing other countries
If you invade somewhere no one should have sympathy for you stay in your shit and there's no problems. This goes for French, USAians, Russian, Germans, Chinese, humanity in general.
So civilians are legitimate military targets now, Herr DanceMomsSavedMe?
And we shouldn't worry about war crimes ever I guess? As long as 'oh there's no other way to save our regime' it's completely fine to gas a civilian populace that might house invading military members?
I knew you guys didn't die out in the 40s but christ you people have gotten so incredibly bold lately.
6 years ago it would have been unthinkable to publicly state you want civilian deaths because the oppressive regime over them invaded somewhere.
Lol insinuating I'm a Nazi because I say that if you bomb another countries civillians they should be allowed to bomb yours back?
That's called collateral damage.
Also calling anyone you disagree with a Nazi doesn't make you look wise it makes you look stupid. I hate Nazis. And I also hate invaders. Which the Nazis were.
...Yes. Blaming a country's citizens, when you allege they are under an oppressive regime and do not have a voice, makes you at best a monster.
That is the justification used by the nazis. That is the justification used by all monsters. Grouping an entire country together for the actions of an oppressive regime is quite literally victim blaming. It's like when the US openly bombed Baghdad and killed over 10k civilians. Everyone recognized that was a bad thing. Everyone recognizes Agent Orange was a bad thing. Everyone recognizes South Korea's use of chemical weapons to wipe out NK civilians was a bad thing.
If you believe the people have no choice, then bombing them is the same as killing the hostages to save them.
Yeah so when a country bombs your apartment buildings and community centers then you do that back.
Hospitals and schools is obviously a line that shouldn't be crossed whether the other side does it or not. (In this scenario the Russians have, by the way)
But apartment buildings and shit? When they hit yours first? Fair game dude. That's how war works.
Obviously fucking using chemical wrapons and torture against them is not ok and also, isnt what I said in this entire thread.
Also you seem to think I like this or get off on this. No. Its just quite simply the way wars fucking work. That's why I think you shouldn't start wars. But if someone starts one with you destroy them or keep fighting back until they leave, that's literally how war is.
But apartment buildings and shit? When they hit yours first? Fair game dude. Thatās how war works.
No, it's explicitly not. I know you're American and thus skipped the entire part of History class based on American war crimes and the 200 countries that signed agreements to not do war crimes, but you are describing war crimes. Explicitly.
But if someone starts one with you destroy them, thatās literally how war is.
No, that is how you create a state of permanent war. The civilians that hated their government? They now exclusively hate you. They will spend the next 500 years attacking you asymmetrically doing 'terrorism.' And you will have EARNED that terrorism.
The US was rightfully attacked on 9/11. Because they were doing this. Because they always do this. When you kill civilians you create future terrorists that will dedicate their death to you.
The line being used from Russia when they did this to Ukraine first is that they had military targets.
So if that's true and Ukraine says the same thing where is the war crime?
Also if the citizens hate you because you defended yourself from being invaded then fuck them. That's not your problem as long as you can defend yourself from them invading you again.
You shouldn't be hated for defending yourself.
The line being used from Russia when they did this to Ukraine first is that they had military targets.
When your enemy is making a mistake, copy them. - Son Fu, Fart of Warts.
Thatās not your problem as long as you can defend yourself from them invading you again.
You won't be able to. Especially with as porous a border as Ukraine has. It takes one person going from Russia to Romania and then crossing that unfenced border to pose a threat to a Ukrainian school in ten years. It takes one person deciding they've had enough for the Evil Ukrainians that killed their wife to drive from Hungary into Ukraine and suicide bomb a government office or a bank.
You shouldnāt be hated for defending yourself.
You won't be, you will be hated and forever targeted for killing civilians. Because they don't care about your shitty little regime, they don't care about your shitty little war, they don't care about anything but surviving their own regime. And all you do by killing civilians is strengthen the enemy regime.
People that would have protested internally in Russia will fully support the Russian invasion, because the evil Ukrainians killed their parents.
People that would have never picked up a gun will do everything in the power to kill Ukrainians, even after the war is over, because the Evil Ukrainians killed their family.
People that actively worked against Russian imperialism internally will now decide that the Evil Ukrainians are worse than the Russians, because the Evil Ukrainians killed their kids.
Yeah, would be nice, but they are fighting for their survival and russia should have never put them in this position to require this. I can't imagine a situation where Ukraine would have come up with these if not out of necessity.
Same reason I can't fault iran for lashing out at non-military targets because the US is illegally attacking them.
Iran is targeting the exact same targets the US is. That's the parity, that's the expectation, that's what every country has to follow if they want to not be seen as an evil regime and be invaded by more countries... except white ones. White ones get to introduce world-ending immoral technology that is only capable of committing war crimes.
I wouldn't send nazis to extermination camps. I wouldn't set nazis on fire. I wouldn't use chemical warfare against nazis, because those things are infinitely worse than losing a war. Losing your humanity leaves you nothing left even if you win.
Regarding the edit, you don't need to announce your political allegiance this explicitly, it was already obvious who you are from the original unedited comment
Yes, I'm anti-literal crimes against humanity. That's my political allegiance. Feel free to kill all the Russians, I don't give a shit you stupid campist, just don't do fucking war crimes or crimes against humanity.
You know by defending Ukraine, you're allying with literal nazis, right? Like goose stepping, swastika bearing Nazis?
this ones, right?
Oh, wait, no, those actually Russians that attacked Ukraine.
Oh, maybe this one?
Damn, no, it's also Russian one.
The world is a complex place and two things can be true at the same time.
See the other replies to this comment for why Ukraine defenders believe that is not the case.
Ooohh, look, the tankies have arrived!
So tell me, where do you get your nonsense information from, exactly?
Also, how do I train in the mental gymnastics to flatten my brain so that I can believe in obvious nonsense too?
The article. In front of you. It's called reading.
Ukraine is admitting they are sending underpowered AI autonomous drones into an active war zone. This means they are no longer targeting military assets. Because we know how shit AI image recognition is.
America is the good guys! Trump is just an abberation and not a reflection of the bloodthirsty nation we are and always were!!!