Future of war: Private robot armies fight it out

[Brazen]

I'm currently researching the ethics of armed drones, so I won't share my thoughts just yet. Suffice it to say, electronic warfare to disrupt enemy electronics, including those aboard drones, could turn warfare into a giant battle of rock, paper, scissors.

[Warspite]

I'm currently researching the ethics of armed drones, so I won't share my thoughts just yet. Suffice it to say, electronic warfare to disrupt enemy electronics, including those aboard drones, could turn warfare into a giant battle of rock, paper, scissors.

Great, so warfare is turning into an RTS game.

[The Brain]

Good old rock.

[Josquius]

Great, so warfare is turning into an RTS game.

Maybe the nations of the world will act like gentlemen and sign a convention to make it turn based?

I'm currently researching the ethics of armed drones, so I won't share my thoughts just yet. Suffice it to say, electronic warfare to disrupt enemy electronics, including those aboard drones, could turn warfare into a giant battle of rock, paper, scissors.

I remember having to write about such ethics in a BS course I had to take once.
I didn't get where the ethical dillema is at all.

[Slargos]

Great, so warfare is turning into an RTS game.

Maybe the nations of the world will act like gentlemen and sign a convention to make it turn based?

I'm currently researching the ethics of armed drones, so I won't share my thoughts just yet. Suffice it to say, electronic warfare to disrupt enemy electronics, including those aboard drones, could turn warfare into a giant battle of rock, paper, scissors.

I remember having to write about such ethics in a BS course I had to take once.
I didn't get where the ethical dillema is at all.

I am not surprised.

[Eddie Teach]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replicating_machine

No motivation for them to do so.

[Slargos]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replicating_machine

No motivation for them to do so.

How the hell would you predict the motivations of a sentient artificial construct?

[Eddie Teach]

With my magic powers.

[11B4V]

Future of war: Private robot armies fight it out
Technology opens way for unlimited algorithm-run clashes of DIY terminators

Maybe they will finally equip these advanced robots with proximity fused RPG-7's

[DontSayBanana]

It's pretty well documented that one of the few things keeping wars as infrequent as they are is the cost in human lives.  We lose that, it becomes a conflict of "who can do more damage to the other's property."  With more frequent wars and more and more costly property being destroyed, global economies would be hammered into a massive depression or worse fairly quickly.

Predator drones aren't for killing robots.  They're for killing people.

[HVC]

Best case scenario, androids or consciousness transfers.

There's no such thing as a consciousness transfer.  That's like believing in magic.

You could likely replicate the same patterns.  But most people would probably be surprised by the results, because most people think consciousness is actually continuous and non-discrete.

I hate seeing it in fiction when someone "uploads" or whatever terminology they use, and their body falls down like a ragdoll.  It's like assuming that a photograph can steal your soul.

And in the 80s they believed people would be walking around with computer terminals strapped to fanny packs. What technology will look like in 30, let alone 100 years, is pretty difficult to accurately predict.

It's simply not how consciousness works, as even mere observation can demonstrate.

The best you can ever create is a replica.  Which sounds worse than it would be, since "you" only exist for a moment anyway.  Continuity is a complete illusion--consider that you are not consciously aware of your entire life up till this point.  The "you" in the past is only accessible by memory.  Consider further that the accessing itself takes time and is not an immediate process, but a discrete series of steps carried out by your thinking organ.

Several "yous" access memory--and between all of them, and between the saved memory and the human recovering them, the state of the brain is different, and in many cases the atoms themselves won't be the same.  If consciousness transfer can't even be accomplished within the same body, why would it be feasible to do so with two?

So the notion of uploading a continuous consciousness is no different than believing in an immortal soul.  It only seems more plausible, but its rooted in the most pernicious of ideologies, that of mind-body dualism.

Just go with the theory that by copying you consciousness the machine burns out your brain. win win. you can keep watching crappy science fiction without going into a rage.

[Iormlund]

And in the 80s they believed people would be walking around with computer terminals strapped to fanny packs. What technology will look like in 30, let alone 100 years, is pretty difficult to accurately predict.

Not really. It is hard to predict what and how it will do whatever it does, but how it'll look is easy. As time goes by you won't be able to tell whether something is technology or not. Whether you choose to carry your computer as an earring, in your clothes or embedded in your cranium, form will not be linked to function anymore. It'll be an aesthetic decision.

[Barrister]

And in the 80s they believed people would be walking around with computer terminals strapped to fanny packs. What technology will look like in 30, let alone 100 years, is pretty difficult to accurately predict.

Not really. It is hard to predict what and how it will do whatever it does, but how it'll look is easy. You won't be able to tell whether something is technology or not. Whether you choose to carry your computer as an earring, in your clothes or embedded in your cranium, form will not be linked to function anymore. It'll be an aesthetic decision.

Not necessarily.  We're really running into thermodynamic barriers when it comes to computers.

You couldn't wear a computer as an earring because it would use too much power,  and therefore produce too much heat, to be comfortable.

[Slargos]

And in the 80s they believed people would be walking around with computer terminals strapped to fanny packs. What technology will look like in 30, let alone 100 years, is pretty difficult to accurately predict.

Not really. It is hard to predict what and how it will do whatever it does, but how it'll look is easy. As time goes by you won't be able to tell whether something is technology or not. Whether you choose to carry your computer as an earring, in your clothes or embedded in your cranium, form will not be linked to function anymore. It'll be an aesthetic decision.

Let's pretend for a second that I meant how it will "look" literally, as in appearance, rather than figuratively.

Take a look at the predictions of the appearance of future technology done 30 of 100 years ago and tell me if you still think it's so easy.

Maybe Habbaku can weigh in aswell. He likes the bandwagon.

[Ideologue]

And in the 80s they believed people would be walking around with computer terminals strapped to fanny packs. What technology will look like in 30, let alone 100 years, is pretty difficult to accurately predict.

Not really. It is hard to predict what and how it will do whatever it does, but how it'll look is easy. You won't be able to tell whether something is technology or not. Whether you choose to carry your computer as an earring, in your clothes or embedded in your cranium, form will not be linked to function anymore. It'll be an aesthetic decision.

Not necessarily.  We're really running into thermodynamic barriers when it comes to computers.

You couldn't wear a computer as an earring because it would use too much power,  and therefore produce too much heat, to be comfortable.

All those ants must be roasting.

Nah, I've no idea how much computing power an ant as, although it's probably significant.