Hey /k/ I have a question. I'm arguing with my father, and he believes that in the next year or two that drones will be able to identify a gun and fire based off its own decisions. I'm attempting to say that won't happen because the possibility of collateral damage would be extreme and the drone wouldn't be able to differentiate between shapes very well, it might mistake a pipe for a rifle something along those lines.
His argument is that cruise missiles are just launched from a ship and go blow up whatever they want, and that making a drone that shoots anyone with a gun isn't much harder.
>>30631443
Your dads retarded and you're <16
Does his uncle works at the DoD?
>>30631467
I'm 23.
>>30631479
No
>>30631443
Computers beat humans at still image recognition as of last year.
http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1325712
Cameras are getting exponentially better too. If not in the next year or two almost certainly within 10, probably within 5. In theory they could already be doing it; this stuff is classified.
>>30631542
Are they going to be able to tell the difference between a farmer with a hoe and an insurgent with a rifle from ~5km away?
Somehow I doubt it.
>>30631564
This is my main argument, a computer has too high of a chance for a fuck up and that if word gets out that computers are making the call to kill people then a large amount of the populace will become angry.
>>30631564
5km is really pushing it camera wise. 500m maybe.
You have to keep in mind exponential growth doesnt fuck around. Digital cameras are literally one billion times better today than they were 30 years ago. If the same growth holds true you will be able to scan someones retina from miles away with a 5 dollar camera module in another decade.
>>30631600
Its not like humans never screw up. They are blowing up a doctors without borders tent every other week it seems like. It doesnt have to be perfect; it just has to be better than we are.
>>30631625
>It doesnt have to be perfect; it just has to be better than we are.
Except there's one thing it will NEVER be better than us at. Accountability. If an automated drone screws up and bombs a daycare or whatever, there's no one to court martial.
>>30631625
Yeah I'm not saying that were not perfect at all. I'm just arguing that in the next year or 2 that mines won't be replaced with drones that see a gun and shoot the person.
The risk for fuck up is too high
This is possible now, especially if you have an operator to confirm the shot and put the liability on someone.
>>30631721
That was something I told him, that now and days drones aren't dropping bboms with full autonomy there is a human operator hitting the button to drop it. He believes drones are not a year or two from making the decisions them selves.
We need to be thinking about quadcopters here working in swarm not raptor style fixed wings.
They just used a rov to blow up a a guy.
It may take 10 years but it coming.
It can't be bargained with It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.
>>30631443
>own decision
>implies full autonomy
>implies Skynet
>implies Terminators
>implies T-1000
>implies those flying things that can level a city block in 3 seconds
Will not happen anytime soon. The government will have to keep a human being involved in the "execution" phase of the process of extra-judiciously execution. It makes a person accountable for a fuck up. And no software developer would create programming for an automated killing machine without an iron clad indemnity clause in his/her/its contract.
>>30631845
That was huge point for my argument ad to why it wouldn't happen. Unless you plan on dropping them somewhere they can just kill indiscriminately then there will be fuck ups, and they won't be used
After blowing up a Doctors Without Borders clinic and wasting a bunch of reporters with tripods that "looked like AK's" I say we have nowhere to go but up. But not in 2 years, we can't even get a fucking car to not drive into buses on its own yet.
