There’s currently no international law specifically prohibiting autonomous weapons systems

You’ve seen Spot run. You’ve seen Spot jump. You’ve seen Spot do cute little booty-shaking dance routines. Now, see Spot fire lethal weapons. Sword Defense Systems has presented a precision rifle for robot dogs, capable of nailing targets 1.2 km (0.75 miles) away.

The Special Purpose Unmanned Rifle, or SPUR, fits on the back of your robot dog of choice – in this case, the Vision-60 quadruped from Ghost Robotics. It weighs 17 lb (7.7 kg), and packs a Teledyne FLIR Boson thermal camera with a 30X optical zoom, capable of picking out targets in daylight or at night.

It fires 6.5 mm Creedmoor rounds, or 7.62 × 51 mm NATO rounds at a pinch, with a 10-round magazine. The SPUR assembly has a ceramic coating designed to make it harder for night vision systems to see it.

Read more about the wonderful world we are building:
https://newatlas.com/military/robot-dog-gun-weapon/

Must admit I’m mystified as to why some people think robotic weapons are somehow nastier than having your head blown off by a fellow human.

Bubblecar said:

Must admit I’m mystified as to why some people think robotic weapons are somehow nastier than having your head blown off by a fellow human.

^

SCIENCE said:

Bubblecar said:

Must admit I’m mystified as to why some people think robotic weapons are somehow nastier than having your head blown off by a fellow human.

^

Someone who rarely leaves their comfy chair would say something like that, but people who are required to fight them might feel differently.

PermeateFree said:

SCIENCE said:

Bubblecar said:

Must admit I’m mystified as to why some people think robotic weapons are somehow nastier than having your head blown off by a fellow human.

^

Someone who rarely leaves their comfy chair would say something like that, but people who are required to fight them might feel differently.

exactly

we let you comfy chair rarefiers say that robotic weapons are somehow nastier than having your head blown off by a fellow human

we fight robotic weapons all the time and feel differently

SCIENCE said:

PermeateFree said:

SCIENCE said:

^

Someone who rarely leaves their comfy chair would say something like that, but people who are required to fight them might feel differently.

exactly

we let you comfy chair rarefiers say that robotic weapons are somehow nastier than having your head blown off by a fellow human

we fight robotic weapons all the time and feel differently

Gosh! You really are a silly boy today.

PermeateFree said:

SCIENCE said:

Bubblecar said:

Must admit I’m mystified as to why some people think robotic weapons are somehow nastier than having your head blown off by a fellow human.

^

Someone who rarely leaves their comfy chair would say something like that, but people who are required to fight them might feel differently.

I presume you mean the robotic weapons are more effective. I’m sure any soldiers facing superior weapons would rather not be, whether they’re robotic or not.

with this robot the person who doesn’t leave their comfy chair can also fire the weapon.. it’s win win.

Arts said:

with this robot the person who doesn’t leave their comfy chair can also fire the weapon.. it’s win win.

Seems to be the case. Old school soldiers are trained for “aggression”, the modern units are trained for calm accuracy. And the robots do that best.

SCIENCE said:

Bubblecar said:

Must admit I’m mystified as to why some people think robotic weapons are somehow nastier than having your head blown off by a fellow human.

^

Autonomy perhaps

Cymek said:

SCIENCE said:

Bubblecar said:

Must admit I’m mystified as to why some people think robotic weapons are somehow nastier than having your head blown off by a fellow human.

^

Autonomy perhaps

right but in what way is that different to “lone wolf” or “rogue” or whateveryouwanttocallit biological Homo sapiens carrying guns

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

SCIENCE said:

^

Someone who rarely leaves their comfy chair would say something like that, but people who are required to fight them might feel differently.

I presume you mean the robotic weapons are more effective. I’m sure any soldiers facing superior weapons would rather not be, whether they’re robotic or not.

Maybe so, but the subject of this topic is robots that can shoot better, conceal themselves, and kill you with little effort. Yes any smart soldier would rather not have to face them, because they are likely to be far superior. But Car, if it makes you happy, have your little thought bubble.

Arts said:

with this robot the person who doesn’t leave their comfy chair can also fire the weapon.. it’s win win.

Yes it will all be in the manual.

SCIENCE said:

Cymek said:

SCIENCE said:

^

Autonomy perhaps

right but in what way is that different to “lone wolf” or “rogue” or whateveryouwanttocallit biological Homo sapiens carrying guns

You certainly are after the silly boy trophy and I think you might win.

PermeateFree said:

There’s currently no international law specifically prohibiting autonomous weapons systems

You’ve seen Spot run. You’ve seen Spot jump. You’ve seen Spot do cute little booty-shaking dance routines. Now, see Spot fire lethal weapons. Sword Defense Systems has presented a precision rifle for robot dogs, capable of nailing targets 1.2 km (0.75 miles) away.

The Special Purpose Unmanned Rifle, or SPUR, fits on the back of your robot dog of choice – in this case, the Vision-60 quadruped from Ghost Robotics. It weighs 17 lb (7.7 kg), and packs a Teledyne FLIR Boson thermal camera with a 30X optical zoom, capable of picking out targets in daylight or at night.

It fires 6.5 mm Creedmoor rounds, or 7.62 × 51 mm NATO rounds at a pinch, with a 10-round magazine. The SPUR assembly has a ceramic coating designed to make it harder for night vision systems to see it.

Read more about the wonderful world we are building:
https://newatlas.com/military/robot-dog-gun-weapon/

I need one. For the NSW Premier for conducting unauthorised experiments.

Reminds me of Chernobyl.

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

Someone who rarely leaves their comfy chair would say something like that, but people who are required to fight them might feel differently.

I presume you mean the robotic weapons are more effective. I’m sure any soldiers facing superior weapons would rather not be, whether they’re robotic or not.

Maybe so, but the subject of this topic is robots that can shoot better, conceal themselves, and kill you with little effort. Yes any smart soldier would rather not have to face them, because they are likely to be far superior. But Car, if it makes you happy, have your little thought bubble.

So you agree, robots are the sensible weapons to invest in if you require weapons. It’s the only point I was making.

Robotic weapons are not more “unethical” than being bayoneted by a human, they’re just likely to be more effective in terms of their military utility.

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

I presume you mean the robotic weapons are more effective. I’m sure any soldiers facing superior weapons would rather not be, whether they’re robotic or not.

Maybe so, but the subject of this topic is robots that can shoot better, conceal themselves, and kill you with little effort. Yes any smart soldier would rather not have to face them, because they are likely to be far superior. But Car, if it makes you happy, have your little thought bubble.

So you agree, robots are the sensible weapons to invest in if you require weapons. It’s the only point I was making.

Robotic weapons are not more “unethical” than being bayoneted by a human, they’re just likely to be more effective in terms of their military utility.

Sorry, I did not know we were discussing ethics, only robots with guns, which will probably be seen in the next battle between majors. Nothing to do with ethics, only winning. Thought you knew we lived in interesting times.

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

Maybe so, but the subject of this topic is robots that can shoot better, conceal themselves, and kill you with little effort. Yes any smart soldier would rather not have to face them, because they are likely to be far superior. But Car, if it makes you happy, have your little thought bubble.

So you agree, robots are the sensible weapons to invest in if you require weapons. It’s the only point I was making.

Robotic weapons are not more “unethical” than being bayoneted by a human, they’re just likely to be more effective in terms of their military utility.

Sorry, I did not know we were discussing ethics, only robots with guns, which will probably be seen in the next battle between majors. Nothing to do with ethics, only winning. Thought you knew we lived in interesting times.

Fair enough :)

these nanobots seem to be winning just fine

SCIENCE said:

these nanobots seem to be winning just fine

Think you are drifting off topic again Science. You must try and concentrate.

Bubblecar said:

Must admit I’m mystified as to why some people think robotic weapons are somehow nastier than having your head blown off by a fellow human.

The way I see it, if human soldiers are sent to fight a war, the risk is huge and this provides a disincentive to fighting a war in the first place. With robots fighting a war, the disincentive is removed and it will be all too easy to go to war. It should never be an easy decision to go to war.

PermeateFree said:

SCIENCE said:

Bubblecar said:

Must admit I’m mystified as to why some people think robotic weapons are somehow nastier than having your head blown off by a fellow human.

^

Someone who rarely leaves their comfy chair would say something like that, but people who are required to fight them might feel differently.

The people directing the robots are probably sitting in comfy chairs in an air conditioned room on the other side of the world.

KJW said:

Bubblecar said:

Must admit I’m mystified as to why some people think robotic weapons are somehow nastier than having your head blown off by a fellow human.

The way I see it, if human soldiers are sent to fight a war, the risk is huge and this provides a disincentive to fighting a war in the first place. With robots fighting a war, the disincentive is removed and it will be all too easy to go to war. It should never be an easy decision to go to war.

Waldos or actual robots with autonomy ¿

SCIENCE said:

KJW said:

Bubblecar said:

Must admit I’m mystified as to why some people think robotic weapons are somehow nastier than having your head blown off by a fellow human.

The way I see it, if human soldiers are sent to fight a war, the risk is huge and this provides a disincentive to fighting a war in the first place. With robots fighting a war, the disincentive is removed and it will be all too easy to go to war. It should never be an easy decision to go to war.

Waldos or actual robots with autonomy ¿

If there is no threat to a human to fight a war, then it will be too easy to fight one. This is true if the robots are human-controlled or autonomous. But at least with human-controlled robots, the number of robots doing the fighting will be limited to the number of humans able to control them. And if both sides are using autonomous robots to fight other autonomous robots, then it seems a little pointless, reminding me of:

Games Without Frontiers – Peter Gabriel

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

SCIENCE said:

^

Someone who rarely leaves their comfy chair would say something like that, but people who are required to fight them might feel differently.

The people directing the robots are probably sitting in comfy chairs in an air conditioned room on the other side of the world.

Or the robot is fully programmed using AI.

KJW said:

SCIENCE said:

KJW said:

The way I see it, if human soldiers are sent to fight a war, the risk is huge and this provides a disincentive to fighting a war in the first place. With robots fighting a war, the disincentive is removed and it will be all too easy to go to war. It should never be an easy decision to go to war.

Waldos or actual robots with autonomy ¿

If there is no threat to a human to fight a war, then it will be too easy to fight one. This is true if the robots are human-controlled or autonomous. But at least with human-controlled robots, the number of robots doing the fighting will be limited to the number of humans able to control them. And if both sides are using autonomous robots to fight other autonomous robots, then it seems a little pointless, reminding me of:

Games Without Frontiers – Peter Gabriel

The idea is still one side wants to beat the other, which with robots will likely be the better designed and programmed. Winner takes all.

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

SCIENCE said:

^

Someone who rarely leaves their comfy chair would say something like that, but people who are required to fight them might feel differently.

The people directing the robots are probably sitting in comfy chairs in an air conditioned room on the other side of the world.

Yes the programmers and designers might, but to have a person controlling a more efficient robot full time is not realistic.

it’s certainly not a dog, of any sort

PermeateFree said:

KJW said:

SCIENCE said:

Waldos or actual robots with autonomy ¿

If there is no threat to a human to fight a war, then it will be too easy to fight one. This is true if the robots are human-controlled or autonomous. But at least with human-controlled robots, the number of robots doing the fighting will be limited to the number of humans able to control them. And if both sides are using autonomous robots to fight other autonomous robots, then it seems a little pointless, reminding me of:

Games Without Frontiers – Peter Gabriel

The idea is still one side wants to beat the other, which with robots will likely be the better designed and programmed. Winner takes all.

It’s not just about winning. Otherwise, there would be no concept of “war crimes”.

KJW said:

PermeateFree said:

KJW said:

If there is no threat to a human to fight a war, then it will be too easy to fight one. This is true if the robots are human-controlled or autonomous. But at least with human-controlled robots, the number of robots doing the fighting will be limited to the number of humans able to control them. And if both sides are using autonomous robots to fight other autonomous robots, then it seems a little pointless, reminding me of:

Games Without Frontiers – Peter Gabriel

The idea is still one side wants to beat the other, which with robots will likely be the better designed and programmed. Winner takes all.

It’s not just about winning. Otherwise, there would be no concept of “war crimes”.

Sorry, but that is a dumb comment, of course it is about winning and war crimes as just a facet of war. You don’t start wars with the sole intention of committing war crimes.

PermeateFree said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

Someone who rarely leaves their comfy chair would say something like that, but people who are required to fight them might feel differently.

The people directing the robots are probably sitting in comfy chairs in an air conditioned room on the other side of the world.

Yes the programmers and designers might, but to have a person controlling a more efficient robot full time is not realistic.

Better to let the robots do their own thing then.

PermeateFree said:

KJW said:

PermeateFree said:

The idea is still one side wants to beat the other, which with robots will likely be the better designed and programmed. Winner takes all.

It’s not just about winning. Otherwise, there would be no concept of “war crimes”.

Sorry, but that is a dumb comment, of course it is about winning and war crimes as just a facet of war. You don’t start wars with the sole intention of committing war crimes.

This is missing the point of what I’m saying. Firstly, my original comment was directed to Bubblecar’s comment about why we think killing humans with robots is worse than killing humans with humans. Secondly, the concept of “war crimes” is about what is and isn’t deemed acceptable during war. If it is only about winning, then anything and everything is fair game.

Over the past several years, I’ve taken an interest in documentaries about Nazi Germany. Two points from these documentaries are worth mentioning: 1, when it became clear to the Nazis that they were going to lose the war, they doubled down on their efforts of the holocaust, even at the expense of resources which could have gone to the war effort. 2, the Nazis went to great lengths to hide the holocaust, even though they believed that what they were doing was right. Thus, they really knew that what they were doing was wrong.

KJW said:

PermeateFree said:

KJW said:

It’s not just about winning. Otherwise, there would be no concept of “war crimes”.

Sorry, but that is a dumb comment, of course it is about winning and war crimes as just a facet of war. You don’t start wars with the sole intention of committing war crimes.

This is missing the point of what I’m saying. Firstly, my original comment was directed to Bubblecar’s comment about why we think killing humans with robots is worse than killing humans with humans. Secondly, the concept of “war crimes” is about what is and isn’t deemed acceptable during war. If it is only about winning, then anything and everything is fair game.

Over the past several years, I’ve taken an interest in documentaries about Nazi Germany. Two points from these documentaries are worth mentioning: 1, when it became clear to the Nazis that they were going to lose the war, they doubled down on their efforts of the holocaust, even at the expense of resources which could have gone to the war effort. 2, the Nazis went to great lengths to hide the holocaust, even though they believed that what they were doing was right. Thus, they really knew that what they were doing was wrong.

For a start you replied to my post (evidenced above).

Secondly, they did not start the war with the prime objective of committing war crimes. I think you read more into things than is actually there.

PermeateFree said:

KJW said:

PermeateFree said:

Sorry, but that is a dumb comment, of course it is about winning and war crimes as just a facet of war. You don’t start wars with the sole intention of committing war crimes.

This is missing the point of what I’m saying. Firstly, my original comment was directed to Bubblecar’s comment about why we think killing humans with robots is worse than killing humans with humans. Secondly, the concept of “war crimes” is about what is and isn’t deemed acceptable during war. If it is only about winning, then anything and everything is fair game.

Over the past several years, I’ve taken an interest in documentaries about Nazi Germany. Two points from these documentaries are worth mentioning: 1, when it became clear to the Nazis that they were going to lose the war, they doubled down on their efforts of the holocaust, even at the expense of resources which could have gone to the war effort. 2, the Nazis went to great lengths to hide the holocaust, even though they believed that what they were doing was right. Thus, they really knew that what they were doing was wrong.

For a start you replied to my post (evidenced above).

Secondly, they did not start the war with the prime objective of committing war crimes. I think you read more into things than is actually there.

hahaha, jaysus you’re a lying piece of shit.

transition said:

Did you watch “Annika” tonight, too?

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

KJW said:

This is missing the point of what I’m saying. Firstly, my original comment was directed to Bubblecar’s comment about why we think killing humans with robots is worse than killing humans with humans. Secondly, the concept of “war crimes” is about what is and isn’t deemed acceptable during war. If it is only about winning, then anything and everything is fair game.

Over the past several years, I’ve taken an interest in documentaries about Nazi Germany. Two points from these documentaries are worth mentioning: 1, when it became clear to the Nazis that they were going to lose the war, they doubled down on their efforts of the holocaust, even at the expense of resources which could have gone to the war effort. 2, the Nazis went to great lengths to hide the holocaust, even though they believed that what they were doing was right. Thus, they really knew that what they were doing was wrong.

For a start you replied to my post (evidenced above).

Secondly, they did not start the war with the prime objective of committing war crimes. I think you read more into things than is actually there.

hahaha, jaysus you’re a lying piece of shit.

Just who the hell do you think you are, just some bloody electrical engineer, big deal. I reckon I have achieved far more than you or your ignorant supporters. Christ I don’t have to take this shit from you, you pitiful ignoramus.

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

For a start you replied to my post (evidenced above).

Secondly, they did not start the war with the prime objective of committing war crimes. I think you read more into things than is actually there.

hahaha, jaysus you’re a lying piece of shit.

Just who the hell do you think you are, just some bloody electrical engineer, big deal. I reckon I have achieved far more than you or your ignorant supporters. Christ I don’t have to take this shit from you, you pitiful ignoramus.

Good, good, let the hate drain. Please, slander me some more; give me that luving you like to hand out. Give it to me, I can take it.

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

hahaha, jaysus you’re a lying piece of shit.

Just who the hell do you think you are, just some bloody electrical engineer, big deal. I reckon I have achieved far more than you or your ignorant supporters. Christ I don’t have to take this shit from you, you pitiful ignoramus.

Good, good, let the hate drain. Please, slander me some more; give me that luving you like to hand out. Give it to me, I can take it.

Can you? Your character is tarnished as is your self massaged ego. Go away you ridiculous inflated twerp.

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

Just who the hell do you think you are, just some bloody electrical engineer, big deal. I reckon I have achieved far more than you or your ignorant supporters. Christ I don’t have to take this shit from you, you pitiful ignoramus.

Good, good, let the hate drain. Please, slander me some more; give me that luving you like to hand out. Give it to me, I can take it.

Can you? Your character is tarnished as is your self massaged ego. Go away you ridiculous inflated twerp.

Surely you can do better than that. Really, it was a bit lame. You need to work on it.

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

Good, good, let the hate drain. Please, slander me some more; give me that luving you like to hand out. Give it to me, I can take it.

Can you? Your character is tarnished as is your self massaged ego. Go away you ridiculous inflated twerp.

Surely you can do better than that. Really, it was a bit lame. You need to work on it.

I don’t need to sibeen, as you are simply not worth it.

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

Can you? Your character is tarnished as is your self massaged ego. Go away you ridiculous inflated twerp.

Surely you can do better than that. Really, it was a bit lame. You need to work on it.

I don’t need to sibeen, as you are simply not worth it.

Sure, no worries, but I’ve decided to hound you every time you have a go at another forumer. You’re a cunt. A dead set cunt. You take joy in having a go at people, so fuck you. You promised you wouldn’t be back a few months ago; I said nothing, although I rejoiced inside. Now you’re back, and doing the same old shit. So I’ll have a go at you every time I’m around you try the disingenuous shit as you did this evening.

Happy posting.

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

Surely you can do better than that. Really, it was a bit lame. You need to work on it.

I don’t need to sibeen, as you are simply not worth it.

Sure, no worries, but I’ve decided to hound you every time you have a go at another forumer. You’re a cunt. A dead set cunt. You take joy in having a go at people, so fuck you. You promised you wouldn’t be back a few months ago; I said nothing, although I rejoiced inside. Now you’re back, and doing the same old shit. So I’ll have a go at you every time I’m around you try the disingenuous shit as you did this evening.

Happy posting.

You pompous prick, do you really think I care about what you think, say or do. You, like your trumped up little friends have been slandering me for years and you expect me to be concerned about your feelings? The ONLY reason I came back was to post about things that might impact on humanities well-being, but all I get in return is you and your stupid friends comments designed to degrade whatever the subject matter. I don’t come here to make friends with the likes of you, but to educate. So sibeen do your worst and give me the pleasure of pricking your over inflated ego.

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

I don’t need to sibeen, as you are simply not worth it.

Sure, no worries, but I’ve decided to hound you every time you have a go at another forumer. You’re a cunt. A dead set cunt. You take joy in having a go at people, so fuck you. You promised you wouldn’t be back a few months ago; I said nothing, although I rejoiced inside. Now you’re back, and doing the same old shit. So I’ll have a go at you every time I’m around you try the disingenuous shit as you did this evening.

Happy posting.

You pompous prick, do you really think I care about what you think, say or do. You, like your trumped up little friends have been slandering me for years and you expect me to be concerned about your feelings? The ONLY reason I came back was to post about things that might impact on humanities well-being, but all I get in return is you and your stupid friends comments designed to degrade whatever the subject matter. I don’t come here to make friends with the likes of you, but to educate. So sibeen do your worst and give me the pleasure of pricking your over inflated ego.

You should have had a comma after the ‘so’ and the ‘sibeen’ in the last sentence. Other than that it appears to be your normal incoherent rant.

I’ll happily

sibeen said:

PermeateFree said:

sibeen said:

Sure, no worries, but I’ve decided to hound you every time you have a go at another forumer. You’re a cunt. A dead set cunt. You take joy in having a go at people, so fuck you. You promised you wouldn’t be back a few months ago; I said nothing, although I rejoiced inside. Now you’re back, and doing the same old shit. So I’ll have a go at you every time I’m around you try the disingenuous shit as you did this evening.

Happy posting.

You pompous prick, do you really think I care about what you think, say or do. You, like your trumped up little friends have been slandering me for years and you expect me to be concerned about your feelings? The ONLY reason I came back was to post about things that might impact on humanities well-being, but all I get in return is you and your stupid friends comments designed to degrade whatever the subject matter. I don’t come here to make friends with the likes of you, but to educate. So sibeen do your worst and give me the pleasure of pricking your over inflated ego.

You should have had a comma after the ‘so’ and the ‘sibeen’ in the last sentence. Other than that it appears to be your normal incoherent rant.

I’ll happily

No, just my dyslexia, but don’t let it stop you as I am quite accustomed to it now. You really are a fool sibeen, striking out at imagined shadows. Let’s face it you have nothing but contempt for me and I have nothing but contempt for you, you just think your contempt carries my weight than mine. What a silly, silly fellow you are. :)))