re: #179 goddamnedfrank

Think about a simple hypothetical. We send an automated XB 47 on a ground attack mission against a specific target, but along the way it is engaged by an air defense radar system. It’s an expensive platform and sooner or later as we invest more and more money into expanding the capabilities of unmanned systems it’s going to be very tempting to give them the ability to react defensively to events in their environment. So let’s say we’ve armed it with anti radiation missiles and given it permission to automatically target hostile ground radar installations that engage it along the way. This might seem reasonable at first blush, except this radar system is located near a school, hospital or other civilian target.

We deal inexpertly enough with collateral damage and consequences when it’s inflicted by human judgement calls. So again, considering the trivial nature of the software updates necessary, the cost of the systems at risk and political fallout potential, will we even be allowed to know when machines are allowed to autonomously decide upon specific use of force actions?

re: #182 Varek Raith

Simple really, a person should always pull the trigger.

People often say simple to describe something riddled with intrinsic nuance simplistically. How exactly will you know what should be happening is what’s actually happening, faith?

In the sense of pure technological capability we crossed this line a long time ago with the Mark 60 CAPTOR sea mines that can be set to passively listen for enemy ship signatures and then launch torpedoes on their own authority.