Well this is at least a bit ominous. While I think things like replacing human with robotic infantry are unequivocally good things to do because then real people wouldn't need to fight wars...
Well this is at least a bit ominous. While I think things like replacing human with robotic infantry are unequivocally good things to do because then real people wouldn't need to fight wars anymore, I feel it will be more used to eliminate emotion and make law enforcement even more ruthless than it is.
Pictures of the exercises were shared on Twitter by France’s foremost military school, the École Spéciale Militaire de Saint-Cyr. It described the tests as “raising students’ awareness of the challenges of tomorrow,” which include the “robotization of the battlefield.”
A report by French newspaper Ouest-France offers more detail, saying that Spot was one of a number of robots being tested by students from France’s École Militaire Interarmes (Combined Arms School), with the intention of assessing the usefulness of robots on future battlefields.
Boston Dynamics’ vice president of business development Michael Perry told The Verge that the robot had been supplied by a European distributor, Shark Robotics, and that the US firm had not been notified about this particular use. “We’re learning about it as you are,” says Perry. “We’re not clear on the exact scope of this engagement.” The company says it was aware that its robots were being used with the French government, including the military.
Spot’s appearance on simulated battlefields raises questions about where the robot will be deployed in future. Boston Dynamics has a long history of developing robots for the US army, but as it’s moved into commercial markets it’s distanced itself from military connections. Spot is still being tested by a number of US police forces, including by the NYPD, but Boston Dynamics has always stressed that its machines will never be armed. “We unequivocally do not want any customer using the robot to harm people,” says Perry.
Spot’s terms and conditions forbid it from being used “to harm or intimidate any person or animal, as a weapon, or to enable any weapon,” and it’s possible to argue that a robot helping to scout buildings for soldiers is not technically harming or intimidating anyone. But if that recon is the prelude to a military engagement it seems like a flimsy distinction.
I disagree that it's unequivocally good, since by removing a significant element of the human cost of war it will potentially make it more likely politicians will choose to wage it rather than...
While I think things like replacing human with robotic infantry are unequivocally good things to do because then real people wouldn't need to fight wars anymore
I disagree that it's unequivocally good, since by removing a significant element of the human cost of war it will potentially make it more likely politicians will choose to wage it rather than seek diplomatic solutions. And just because the infantry on one side are robotic does not mean they will be on both sides, which raises all sorts of serious ethical concerns, especially in asymmetrical warfare situations where the line between enemy soldier and civilian can become incredibly blurry. And another potential unintended consequence of robotic soldiers may be that due to their destruction not adding to the human costs, which makes it less beneficial to actually target them, civilians may then start being targeted more often instead as a means of forcing the nations using robots to make peace.
However, despite my misgivings about them, I suspect the switch to robotic infantry, at least by the superpowers, is sadly inevitable.
Sure, human soldiers can commit atrocities, but at least there is the possibility of them questioning their orders to commit such acts, or even disobeying them. Humans can also choose to become...
Sure, human soldiers can commit atrocities, but at least there is the possibility of them questioning their orders to commit such acts, or even disobeying them. Humans can also choose to become conscientious objectors, or even whistleblowers who can bring unlawful/unethical orders and atrocities to light. But if whoever controls the robotic soldiers orders them to commit atrocities, that is exactly what they will do, without hesitation, and without the possibility of them questioning those orders or disobeying them.
So who do you trust more, the conglomeration of individual soldiers that make up an army, or the much smaller group of people controlling the governments and militaries of the world? Considering the absolute monsters that have managed to rise to power throughout history (and even recently), I personally trust the humanity and judgement of soldiers more, overall.
Oh I do not trust anyone. But robots do have the negative of being able to become highly efficient. When you tell a human platoon to shoot at the enemy, not everyone will shoot to kill.
Oh I do not trust anyone. But robots do have the negative of being able to become highly efficient.
When you tell a human platoon to shoot at the enemy, not everyone will shoot to kill.
I strongly disagree. Replacing human soldiers with robots eliminates any sort of moral accountability. Although human soldiers aren't great at that either, they're certainly an order of magnitude...
While I think things like replacing human with robotic infantry are unequivocally good things to do because then real people wouldn't need to fight wars anymore
I strongly disagree. Replacing human soldiers with robots eliminates any sort of moral accountability. Although human soldiers aren't great at that either, they're certainly an order of magnitude better than military higher-ups.
Another problem is that it puts an army under more direct control of individual politicians and military leaders.
I can make an exception for individually-controlled reconnaissance drones.
Well this is at least a bit ominous. While I think things like replacing human with robotic infantry are unequivocally good things to do because then real people wouldn't need to fight wars anymore, I feel it will be more used to eliminate emotion and make law enforcement even more ruthless than it is.
I disagree that it's unequivocally good, since by removing a significant element of the human cost of war it will potentially make it more likely politicians will choose to wage it rather than seek diplomatic solutions. And just because the infantry on one side are robotic does not mean they will be on both sides, which raises all sorts of serious ethical concerns, especially in asymmetrical warfare situations where the line between enemy soldier and civilian can become incredibly blurry. And another potential unintended consequence of robotic soldiers may be that due to their destruction not adding to the human costs, which makes it less beneficial to actually target them, civilians may then start being targeted more often instead as a means of forcing the nations using robots to make peace.
However, despite my misgivings about them, I suspect the switch to robotic infantry, at least by the superpowers, is sadly inevitable.
Well, at least robots do not rape.
Sure, human soldiers can commit atrocities, but at least there is the possibility of them questioning their orders to commit such acts, or even disobeying them. Humans can also choose to become conscientious objectors, or even whistleblowers who can bring unlawful/unethical orders and atrocities to light. But if whoever controls the robotic soldiers orders them to commit atrocities, that is exactly what they will do, without hesitation, and without the possibility of them questioning those orders or disobeying them.
So who do you trust more, the conglomeration of individual soldiers that make up an army, or the much smaller group of people controlling the governments and militaries of the world? Considering the absolute monsters that have managed to rise to power throughout history (and even recently), I personally trust the humanity and judgement of soldiers more, overall.
Oh I do not trust anyone. But robots do have the negative of being able to become highly efficient.
When you tell a human platoon to shoot at the enemy, not everyone will shoot to kill.
I strongly disagree. Replacing human soldiers with robots eliminates any sort of moral accountability. Although human soldiers aren't great at that either, they're certainly an order of magnitude better than military higher-ups.
Another problem is that it puts an army under more direct control of individual politicians and military leaders.
I can make an exception for individually-controlled reconnaissance drones.