>Today's generation of fighter pilots could be the last of their breed, thanks to an AI system dubbed ALPHA that's proving unkillable in air combat.
>The US Air Force has just completed dogfighting trials in a simulator, pitching the software against retired Air Force Colonel Gene Lee. The AI – which ran on a $35 RaspberryPi computer – was deliberately handicapped but still managed to shoot down its fleshy opponent every time and evade his attempts to kill it.
>ALPHA is "the most aggressive, responsive, dynamic and credible AI I've seen to date," Lee said. "I was surprised at how aware and reactive it was. It seemed to be aware of my intentions and reacting instantly to my changes in flight and my missile deployment. It knew how to defeat the shot I was taking. It moved instantly between defensive and offensive actions as needed."
>To make the defeat even more humiliating, the ALPHA AI's fighters were deliberately handicapped with shorter-range missiles and fewer of them, and its opponents got additional intelligence from a simulated AWACS radar aircraft.
>Lee has been fighting AI systems on a flight simulator for decades and said they are usually not that hard to beat. But ALPHA's reaction times and unpredictability made it a superb opponent. "I go home feeling washed out. I'm tired, drained and mentally exhausted. This may be artificial intelligence, but it represents a real challenge," he said.
>The US Air Force is very keen on developing computers that can take human pilots out of the loop. Not only are good pilots hard to find, but they take years to train properly and the life-support systems needed to keep a human alive in the air add significant weight to fighter aircraft.
>Being able to add a system like ALPHA to a drone would cut costs dramatically, enable forces to be deployed without human loss of life, and – if these tests pan out – enable them to dominate the skies.
>>14419943
What a shame. Humans should be in the equation.
>>14419959
This.
>>14419959
They will. They'll perform maintenance and give orders. They'll continue flying more humanitarian missions where a human face is needed to I suppose. The age of dog-fighting is long over though and just putting computers in the air is inevitable really.
>>14419959
Maybe hanging well back from the front lines communicating with the drones through unjammable laser links giving them orders on what to go and kill.
>You will never be a glorious flying knight
>>14419959
>Humans should be in the equation.
Shut up, Fukai.
>>14419943
Hey anon, you got a source for this?
Because I'd like to read the full article if possible.
![AIF-7S_Ghost_Fighter[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/enAUiYm.jpg "AIF-7S_Ghost_Fighter[1].jpg")
>>14420023
I copied the OP text from The Register because it was shorter.
Full article here with a link to the PDF of the research paper.
magazine.uc.edu/editors_picks/recent_features/alpha.html
>>14420049
Thanks anon
>>14419959
:salute:
a glorious new dawn of quoting Yukikaze is upon us, gents.
>>14420083
Soon there'll be nothing to do but whittling boomerangs.
Can we program our AI overlords to airjoust whenever possible for that Ace Combat aesthetic?
>>14420083
>quoting Yukikaze
If only Yukikaze had any memorable lines.
>>14420049
>>14419943
Does it actually work as a well in a real environment though? In a simulator an AI can have perfect senses, but that's not necessarily true in the real world.
>>14420083
Holy shit finally now my autistic asshole self can be a fighter pilot.
PURGE NEMO
INFORMATION HIGH SOON
>>14420110
dude did you read the book?
>MOTHERFUCKING JAM
>>14420232
>>14420106
>just airjousting
Anon they'd probably dogfight each other during 90-degree thrust-vectoring with cannons while dueling each other's missiles with their own if we let them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pmuf1GaUSyA
>>14420271
>read the book
I'm sure that line sounded better in your head.
>>14419959
You got that right, mate.
>>14420273
I can imagine the ground staff just stopping whatever they were doing to watch and cheer.
>Go mate, shoot that slavshit ass down!
>Holy shit! Did you saw that 90 degree turn?
>>14419943
You know, I'm flabbergasted that the world NEVER LEARNS ITS LESSONS.
You would think they'd be thoroughly be cautious with the cautionary tales of fiction, but they seem to instead take it as "instructions/blueprints for the future".
Fucking JAM.
>>14420417
Because that is the most retarded thing one could ever do, the only way for a AI to lose its shit and attack humans would be if he was programed to do that, do you think one day they boot up the program it just thinks "today I will destroy humanity" for fuck sake do the samrt thing and headbutt a goddamn knife you jackass
This was the plot of that terrible movie Stealth.
>Extreme Deep Invader
>>14420159
Uncertain. But that's why they experiment, I suppose. Having this act as a baseline allows for engineers to see what sort of real-life blocking problems will pop up later on down the line
>>14420417
You act like they haven't read the same fiction.
"Hey, these robot drones that we are making. They can't rebel, right?"
"What? No. They are not smart enough."
"Okay good. But just in case they WERE smart enough, what could we do about it?"
"Well... they don't have the permissions or compilers needed to change their own code. So anything we program into them stays there. Maybe a kill-switch command to deactivate their weapons? Or just a timer that tells them to disarm and return to base if we stop sending them commands for too long?"
"Sure, whatever. Just make sure this doesn't end up as Skynet on my watch."
>>14419959
Why?
I see a lot of people saying this but nobody ever gives a reason
>>14420596
MUH HUMAN INGENUITY
MUH HUMAN SPIRIT
Bullshit like this probably
>>14420596
mostly because someone can be held accountable for any fuckup.
And more importantly, if I get killed in a war, I'd much rather be killed by a human than by a robot.
>>14420605
>>14420596
Because in the end human morality and intuition and even inaction still has a place.There may come a time when machines surpass us in even this. Until that time we shouldn't be eager to remove the human element.
>>14420596
Think of it this way; there are many people who have through time brought up the idea that drones create a separation from warfare that simply should not be.
Although we know that drone operators suffer their own traumas and issues, there is simply something fundamentally odd to the average man about the concept of fighting without fighting in-body. Sure, you have commanders, and leaders, and folks like us who see though the accounts of the guys who were there, but historically, for all the means we've taken up to protect ourselves from death in combat, this news here is what at least looks like a big step in a new direction- of protecting oneself from death by not fighting bodily.
>>14420605
Why do you assume this? It's a shame because historically we have fought man-to-man, after a fashion, even with automation increasing. Be it in a vehicle or on foot, the other guy was still there. But to fight a war against an opponent you can never touch? It's fundamental change, and to boot there is an air of romance, as silly as it sounds, to being a pilot or driver. This changes these things, and although it is perhaps inevitable, perhaps it's just a sign of the times.
It's not a matter of spirit or ingenuity, I dunno why those'd be brought up.
>>14420596
>>14420605
If the robots are fighting the war for us on every level, then what is the point of us?
>>14420625
>human morality
>in war
L
O
L O L O L
O
L
>>14420625
>Because in the end human morality and intuition and even inaction still has a place
And when has this been a factor in the last few wars? We have drones bomb anyone and everyone, we even bomb wrong targets all the same with humans, there is no real need for humans
>>14420629
>there is an air of romance, as silly as it sounds, to being a pilot or driver
Until you fucking die
>>14420623
>mostly because someone can be held accountable for any fuckup.
It's the military we're talking about.
>>14420635
Yes, and this is why people complain about drones, you assfaggot.
>>14420629
>>14420643
Oh wow you really believe what cartoons and movies say about war beign a glorious thing don't you? War is about killing the other side there nothing romantic or glorious about shooting someone on the face or bombing a school that you think it has enemy combatants there, every signle invention we ever did was to better and faster kill the other side, do you seriously think a random soldier gives a single lonely fuck about anyone not fighting? Why do you think they end up as wrecks? Stop using fucking anime as a way to build up arguments
>>14419943
Nice job posting the source faggot.
>http://www.popsci.com/ai-pilot-beats-air-combat-expert-in-dogfight
>>14420637
That's what I was saying dude. We still think of joining the army as a big deal, as something important, despite the fact that by all means it is an invitation to death. What does it mean if you join an army to not die, but to kill anyways? Or to join and not be involved in anyones' death? It's more like a community service in that case, which is still very important, but somehow it feels less grave. These are very stupid ideas, but are they not true?
>>14420629
>But to fight a war against an opponent you can never touch?
We used to be fine with: "Man presses button, robot kills all of humanity."
>>14420596
it's basically cheating: nobody's at risk, nobody can be pinpointed for doing something wrong.
Except the guys who are getting blown up.
Strategy is about cheating, and making the fight as unfair as possible by killing the other guy without putting yourself in any danger; I'd say this is the final stage of strategy since there's not even a pilot who can be held accountable for what happens, and thus the final stage of cheating and unfairness in war.
>>14420651
Those wrongful bombings have been going on since way before drones were ever a factor, people were always crying about that don't try to pin it on drones because since vietnam this has been happening
>>14420629
Soooo, why aren't you bitching about the US and many other countries just sending bombers or bombing from the middle of the ocean the terrorists in Syria and other countries? There is no real fighting, they only point to a map and say to drop bombs there
Here's the actual paper: http://www.omicsgroup.org/journals/genetic-fuzzy-based-artificial-intelligence-for-unmanned-combat-aerialvehicle-control-in-simulated-air-combat-missions-2167-0374-1000144.pdf
>>14420653
Where did I ever say this?I never even mentioned anime. I was saying that to fight a war with so little risk to oneself is something that has seemed very strange. Why do you think people always make fun of "officers"? I never said anything about any of these things being good, just that there are ways that we thingh about things that are changed by this new development.
It is a fundamental, or potentially fundamental change in how we have done things for a long, long time, and in turn it could change how we think of these things too.
It is a terrible thing, but nonetheless it is a thing that people associate certain things with, and that people have certain conceptions and feelings about, and this could change a lot of those things.
You don't think that's a bit strange?
>>14420653
It's a sliding scale. There IS a small part of romanticism and nobility about killing people when you're directly involved. It's very very small but it's slightly higher than when you aren't
>>14420669
>But it's romantic to other people
And? What do other people matter in this? The drones are there to replace and ensure the safety of the soldier, why should what dumb belief the common civillian people hold matter?
>>14420665
They can still get blown up by missiles. It happens. Invaders still get killed in wars.
>>14420659
>I'd say this is the final stage of strategy since there's not even a pilot who can be held accountable for what happens
The President would claim that the software company fucked up and the software company would claim that they are in fact not identical with the company who made and sold the product originally.
>>14420672
Why do you think cannons were invented? No really why do you think they made things that allowed them to rain death at the enemy from as far away as they could?
>>14420623
If they cared what you thought, they wouldn't be trying to kill you, would they?
>>14420658
>>14420660
Yes, it's always happened, and people always cry about it. Mines are still blowing off childrens' legs in some shithole. But guess what, with each new advance we get even more removed from the human element of warfare. In the end it'll just be PCs fighting each other and we will be 100% isolated from even war.
How do you think that will affect human society, behavior, thought processes, morality, perspective, etc.? Positively? Because all the coddled millennial shitters you hear about now are the result of two generations of being removed from Nam, from any tangible greater suffering and violence, and the Nam hippies were the result of two generations being removed from the pain of WW2, the sequel to The Big One.
>>14420681
Yeah, and at the end nobody would lose their job except maybe a handful of low-end dumbasses.
>>14420678
So, we should let soldiers die senseless deaths because the public finds that romantic? I'm wrong for valuing the life of a soldier more than the opinion of a civilian who wants a soldier to die for entertainment? Are you literally insane?
>>14420685
>fighting each other
you don't get what war is about, do you?
War isn't just a game, if it were, nobody would complain. War is about crippling your enemy, and that can't be achieved without killing people, because people are the ones who make stuff and try to fuck each other over however indirectly.
These AI drones won't be used merely to fight each other, they'll be used to bomb the shit out of infrastructures and people, and then maybe defend us from the other AI drones.
They're still killing machines.
>>14420692
So yeah you are just a shitposter, why would I ever expect anything else from here anyway
>>14420658
But people -weren't- fine with that and still aren't. It was and is something that still takes up space in our minds today. It's a fundamental change, perhaps akin to this one. It's left a big mark on society- that's what I have been trying to say.
>>14420665
It is sort of the same concept. That is a good point. If this were to be tied into previous points, could we also say that modern proxy warfare and other conflicts have changed our conceptions of combat as well?
I think people may be getting me wrong here. I am trying to say that this development could signal a change in thinking in the years to come and that, like the ICBM and nuclear weapon, it could become ingrained into society and our conceptions of combat. It will not necessarily change how things play out in reality, but it's still there in the back of our minds as something that could make stuff die faster than usual.
>>14420683
This does not change any of the point I was trying to make. Are not cannons now something that we can always think of and remember? This is like the very first invention of the cannon- it is revolutionary and terrifying and it will affect us for some time.
I should clarify now that I do not believe the removal of humans to be a bad thing- just a big thing. It seems, at least to me, like something almost novel and unheard of because of how unprecedentedly effective it is. I am expressing myself badly.
>>14420691
A soldier's death is only senseless to other people, typically to civilian pacifists.
Go tell soldiers that their comrades' deaths are "senseless".
>>14420417
There's two kinds of AI.
AI as seen in fiction, the "strong AI" as some call it, which is essentially "let's make a digital lifeform" and is mostly a field for philosophical wank and various novelty.
AI as reported in the news, the so-called "weak AI," which is focused on functionality in specified fields, utilizing learning algorithms that permit them the ability to adjust their behavior based on feedback but not the ability to suddenly do something completely outside the realm of its design.
Weak AI's capacity for maliciousness is both bound by design and by the environment it learns from. An intelligent chatbot can be duped into calling people transsexual niggers over time, an evolutionary algorithm designed to shit out optimal designs for antennae isn't going to be doing much.
The only cause for concern that the latter could achieve a Skynet scenario is designing weak AI for roles that ultimately result in people dying. I guess if you pollute the decision tree such that allies are confused with enemies, and if someone makes the mistake of "a kill switch would just give the enemy the opportunity to shut it down remotely so we have it disabled when it's in combat mode" then good job I guess?
TL/DR:
Only philosophers have anything to worry about when it comes to AI.
Oh, I guess maybe middle class jobs might be at risk once they design AI that can churn out consumer goods based on market data.
Like, from an economic standpoint, job loss to robots 'n shiet can't be good without a massive skill shift towards tech and software to maintain it.
>>14420685
>Because all the coddled millennial shitters you hear about now are the result of two generations of being removed from Nam
Opinion discarded. You are retarded for 2 things.
1- Acting like an entire generation is fucked just because of a few faggots you see on the internet
2- Wanting people to die meaningless deaths just because "those millennials sure are dumb amiright guys?? xD"
>>14420704
"a big thing" means "a potentially very very bad thing".
It is a sad truth, but it is important for mankind and society that humans die in war killing other humans directly.
>>14420697
War is not a "game," which is why the human element must remain in war. You don't understand this because you are a smarmy faggot who thinks he understands what war is because he's read about WW2 and seen war movies. The greater society requires an intimate knowledge of the horror of war, in order to understand the value of life, the fragility of it and the sacrifices others make on our behalf.
Without that understanding, it's all a bunch of autistic officers who have never seen a battlefield in the flesh dictating down orders so some no-name can hit a button and laser lights flash and everyone pats themselves on the back. War will lose meaning. It will indeed become a game. Nothing but goals and skirmishes and theory carried out far, far away until someone decides they've just lost too much money. At that point, society has lost something important.
>>14420711
Go tell teh family of the soldier that died that his death was meaningful, go tell his mother and father that he died in the middle of nowhere and they either don't have the body of have only parts of it, go tell the wife that that lost her husband that the father of her child will never see the kid grow up, go tell the child that dear daddy died god knows where and he will never be there when he is needed the most.
Yours is the one from a civilian who doesn't know shit about anything and can only equate it to glorious shit you saw on movies
>>14420718
You sure showed me you aren't a fucktard with your watamote reaction image. Good job reducing my post down to shit I never said, too.
>>14420726
I'm another guy, I'm just pointing out that war will become MORE horrible when people risk their lives on one side only.
>>14420729
Did you not say "WE NEED WARS BECAUSE MUH MILLENNIALS"? Because it sure as hell sounded like it
>>14420728
Look retard, everyone would rather not have the war in the first place, but are you going to tell me that some family would rather hear "your son died for nothing lel a robot could have done it" rather than that they died fighting for something? Because that's the kind of bullshit your narrowminded viewpoint leads to. One where wars will keep happening because war is what people do, but then you got retards like you shitting on the people who fight them as dying for nothing, and parroting it over and over online, in the media, etc,. until eventually people accept it through sheer attrition.
>>14420722
I'd also wanted to mention this actually, but I was afraid that I'd run out of space. I had wanted to say that people don't like change.
War is horrible. There is absolutely no way to deny this. It is the truth, whole and full. However, humans will be humans and that means we like routine. People like to do things as they always have. My first post- the very first, is probably just a reactionary version of this.
Obviously it'd be better if less people died, but people don't like change.
>>14420728
Yours is one from a civilian who doesn't know shit about anything and can only equate it to depressing shit you saw on movies.
Not every damn soldier is pressured into joining the army, you retard.
>>14420738
No, retard, we need a human element in war because war is inevitable but without the human element, man grows isolated from war and loses a greater perspective that comes from acknowledging the type of horror and knowledge of mortality only knowing war can provide. You are a moron.
>>14420739
>are you going to tell me that some family would rather hear "your son died for nothing lel a robot could have done it" rather than that they died fighting for something?
Yeah I agree soldiers die in the past so that means we should keep sending other soldiers to die so that it looks like it was for something
Do you not realize how dumb you sound?
>>14420755
That's not what I said at all you dishonest faggot. Jesus fuck you are shit at arguing anything.
>>14420752
Not this guy, but there will STILL be a human element in war: the guy who gets blown up by a robot.
>>14419959
t. Treize
>>14420739
>family would rather hear "your son died for nothing lel a robot could have done it"
No a family would rather a robot get destoyed than have their sons die, how fucking hard is that to understand? Why do you think people want drones and robots to take the place of the soldiers? They don't want their loved ones to die in fucking wars
I look at things that way: the more I know the guy who's killing me, the better I'll feel about getting killed.
Here it's not even possible to determine which guy killed me.
That sucks.
>>14420752
I agree with you, its not like drone pilots suffer crippling ptsd or anything, we really need the guy there to see the whites in the eyes of the enemy
>>14420782
You should read that post over, again, carefully.
>>14420783
>I look at things that way: the more I know the guy who's killing me, the better I'll feel about getting killed.
You think they would rather die to another man?
>>14420800
what?
is that a reference I'm not getting?
>>14420794
Except I'm not shitting on the people fighting the war, I'm shitting on people who think that we should feed soldiers to the war simply because that is how it happened in the past and from the history books, movies, comics, games and everything else it paints war as a glorious thing when it really fucking isn't, do you think anyone likes hearing that someone they knew and loved died?
>>14420815
Retard, in the very first line of the post you are responding to I said "everyone would rather not have the war in the first place." So no, I do not think anyone likes hearing that their kid died in war and you are a fucking illiterate retard for even bringing that up.
But guess what, that kid is going to die in the war anyhow, and when you kid dies fighting in a war, what would you rather hear? Would you rather hear from some faggot on 4chan that he died for nothing because a robot could have done it? Or that he died for something? Even if hyper advanced AI drones are built today, and all the kinks are ironed out tomorrow, and they start rolling them off production lines next week, humans will still die in wars, possibly forever. Because a fighting man is cheaper than a state of the art bleeding edge machine, and because as the fucking laser light shows and grandstanding in Vietnam, in Desert Storm, in Desert Storm 2: The Sequel, etc. have taught us, you can't just win with artillery and plane strikes. You need a dude on the ground.
Now, if you are going to use some shitty fucking argument from emotion like "think of that dead dude's mom," think of how that dead dude's mom will feel when, as opposed to hearing her son died for something, he died for nothing and "they should've just used a drone lel"
That's you. You are that asshole whinging about the drone.
on my head this whole automation of armies can be bad
whoever calls the shots stars seeing less human deads and suffering and more just projected monetary loss, that can be good
also that cant mean than some killgore out there can send fucking everyone in some vietnam/WW1 tier meatgrinder, and noone cant really see the kill counts
thats just my take
>>14420417
I'm flabbergasted that you think people should learn a lesson from fiction on this. Fiction where it works completely unlike the real world at that. I'm surprised you haven't rounded up w mob to kill your own computer.
>>14420844
>Would you rather hear from some faggot on 4chan that he died for nothing because a robot could have done it?
The same could be said about you though, would they rather know that their son didn't fight in a war because a robot took his place or would they rather hear that he died because some faggot on 4chan said a human fighting the war is the correct thing?
Do you seriously think that the family cares that he died for something? The only thing they can proccess is that they lost someone dear to them, seriously this is the internet why don't you look for interviews with the people who deliver a death notification? See what they all have in common
>And you could see it on their face and you could just see their world collapse. And it was heart-wrenching
>People grieve in their own way. In some cases, families are even reluctant to open their door. It's almost as if they can say no, no, no.
http://www.npr.org/2013/05/27/186452175/a-grim-task-military-death-notification
You can write walls of text to try and justify we sending our soldiers to die when we could put robots but it will never be right and robots will take their places because this is what we yearn for
>>14420898
I'm talking about if the kid is dead either way, while you're talking about it like there's a choice involved, you dishonest shithead.
>>14420898
Stop trying to argue, we have morons on this very baord that actively hate robots and AI, who take fictional worlds as objective truth about our world, gone are the days when /m/ was better
>>14420844
I've honestly read this entire post and can't discern a single solid argument from it.
>>14420905
And? I'm talking about the AI development and how it could stop the senseless slaughter soldiers, you're the one who keeps saying that it shouldn't change, I'm talking about the future and how it could change but you, being the shortsighted jackass that you are, keep trying to make a especific situation where yo uare right, in that the soldier is dead, for all this bullshit about calling me dishonest you're actually worse because you run away from the argument, you keep backpedaling like faggot to try and have any real ground to spout asinine platitudes because you're a fucking faggot who uses what Treize said as gospel.
You're probably a american cunt who will only serve the army if you want while we have to serve the army as a rule before becoming actual people.
I'll say it again, headbutt a fucking knife you chimp
>>14420935
Yeah and how long is it going to take until the human element is phased out of warfare completely?
>>14420943
Sooner rather than later, hopefully.
>>14420943
Why does that matter? Are you really trying to ask a leading quesiton so you can backpedal again? Could be tomorrow, could be today, could be never, I don't give a single fuck, I'm why it should be done while you're the faggot who keeps repeating what a fucking gundam character said
>>14420959
You know that people other than Treize have said that the human element is important in warfare, right?
>>14420964
So, now you fall back to shitposting when no one agrees with you, classy
>>14420976
Of course, but who else gets regularly cited here? Who else had walls of text dedicated to telling how he is perfect in his reasoning?
>>14420959
I think you're assuming that we will be the only ones with advanced AI tech in drones, and that's a really naive assumption.
It's only fun when its not you.
>>14420987
Do you not see all the people talking about Yukikaze, a series of books that deals with exactly this same dilemma?
GJ, retard.
>>14420993
Did you actually read the books? Are you going to use the fact that a whole alien planet/dimension could take control of the AI weapons as a argument? And you call me the retard, god damn
>>14421010
How can you miss the point so hard?
>>14420991
Won't that only lead to the same situation as the nukes? US and some other power start getting real good AI weapons and they pass a legislation to stop the proliferationg of AI weapons locking everything down to the peopel who already have AI weapons and the ones who don't
>>14421021
How can you miss it? The human element was needed because the JAM could spoof it and the ultimate weapon still ended up being a AI who could identify them, I really don't know what is your point actually
>>14421032
>>14421010
In the books the human element was being phased out and it was even the hypothesis of the author chick and Jack that the ultimate goal of the JAM was to create a generation of humans that thought like machines, so that the JAM could understand them, and then humanity would lose.
A massive segment of the second book was about the meaning of human soldiers when machines are doing all the fighting. What's the point of humanity then? The machines outgrow us, what do we bring to the table, and what's left?
These books were all about analyzing the value of the human component in warfare and human purpose in a world where warfare was becoming dominated by machine intelligences and machines.
But here you are going
>get fucked treize
Real smooth.
>>14420653
Not him, but for much of world history (basically everything prior to WW1) there was a level of romanticism of war and killing.
>>14421023
that's what I'm implying, and then no doubt they'll be forced to put the "muh human element" back into the mix, and that'ss assuming they even let the automation of killing people get to the point of being purely AI driven.
the arguments between the other anons is moot (no pun).
>>14420993
It's a bit messy in Yukikaze. On one hand, humans are necessary in battle because passing responsibility over to machines risks mutating the conflict into something completely out of control for humanity, between the FAF machine intelligences' ideas of how to best achieve "defeat the JAM" and the JAM's knack for subversion. It's feared that at some point, the very nature of humanity will be subverted, humans becoming machines much as the machine-like JAM utilizes its growing awareness of the human condition.
On the other, humans are necessary because, particularly in the case of the SAF, the JAM is kinda nonplussed by the human element and its ability to operate beyond mere rational thought. Humanity's as alien to the JAM as the JAM are to us, and it wasn't until deep into the second book that it's revealed the JAM have grasped the nature of normal human beings like you see in the FAF (or at least enough of basic human nature to engineer JAM clones, and even then those JAM clones act much the same as the FAF's AI in that rather than express the will of their creators, they act upon their assigned objective in the way they believe best achieves it, even if it's not their creators' intent). So it's the SAF, with its psychological self-similarity where survival of the individual is survival of the whole combined with the interfacing of irrational human intuition and rational machine logic, that jams up the JAM and is like the best thing humanity has going for them in the conflict, because it's one of the things that the JAM has had difficulty subverting to fit its machinations.
Really, the question "are humans necessary in battle" wasn't posed to challenge the drone question we see today, although it nonetheless has some relevance to it. Rather, the question was to dig at the series' overarching issue: "What is human? What is inhuman?"
>>14420691
>So, we should let soldiers die senseless deaths because the public finds that romantic?
All I'm saying is doing look up a WW1 general known as The Butcher
Protip: he's not called that by his enemies
>>14421062
That's ultimately a philosophical question you could apply to anything from food production to entertainment and isn't really a substantial argument for anything.
>>14421156
don't look*
>>14420726
This is honestly what worries me the most.
When something carries risk, you avoid it.
When you take the risk out of war, why would those who control such things avoid it? How long until we become detached and going to war becomes the first resort?
>>14421062
>A massive segment of the second book was about the meaning of human soldiers when machines are doing all the fighting. What's the point of humanity then?
Something that doesnt involve killing each other, maybe
>>14420510
This. Artificial intelligence is not synonymous with forming new ideas. We will not be ruled by robot overlords within our lifetime.
>>14419943
Just put fresh pilots with potential into a deathroom with the AI for a couple weeks and they'll be shooting them down like they were bots in CS.
There's always quirks and limitations to reactive computer opponents that can be exploited.
The real problem is with robots at the forefront of battle, and with no risk of human loss, society becomes timid and weak. Humans, without fear of death, will become pathetic and will be at a total loss if the battle were to be brought directly to the people.
That's really all there is.
>>14421516
t. spoiled 14 year old
>>14421525
He's wrong if only because that's already happened.
SJWs are a direct result of a pampered generation.
>>14421542
Ah right, because people like the sjw only ever appeared on our time right? They were never a constant thing across human history
>>14421552
Sure, but they never had as much influence as they do now.
all this talk of AI in warfare has me thinking, sure the age of AI ruling people won't happen anytime soon but wouldn't it be hilarious if after a major conflict with clear victor that nation's dominance only lasts a very short time before the AI and robots took over everything?
>>14421561
And that is not because they bacame powerful overnight, stop being childish, they are loud because now, during this age, everything is connected so they are able to find like minded people across the globe, something that didn't happen before
>>14421561
if they really had influence then Britain wouldn't have left
>>14421608
fuck off /pol/ we're full.
>>14421578
I can't deny that.
Still, something just seems inherently wrong with AI taking over the battlefield.
Aside for the human accountability aspect.
![スタートレック TOS 第23話 コンピューター戦争 - Niconico VideoGINZA.mp4_snapshot_45.37_[2016.06.29_13.44.58].png](https://i.imgur.com/0weFnEA.png "スタートレック TOS 第23話 コンピューター戦争 - Niconico VideoGINZA.mp4_snapshot_45.37_[2016.06.29_13.44.58].png")
>>14421365
>When you take the risk out of war, why would those who control such things avoid it? How long until we become detached and going to war becomes the first resort?
there's a Star Trek that sorta covers this
https://mega.nz/#!MtoxzDBL!pNohFKCA1Vt99QL0xDAsWWhmHbbsLusS3e8sGc9RS5g
>>14421619
>>14421578
It's probably the fact that our government has been demonstrably corrupt and idiotic, even in the face of public media, and giving them AI weaponry should make anyone shit their pants.
also this
>>14420726
>>14421619
>something just seems inherently wrong with AI taking over the battlefield.
it's the sense of connection to it, that feeling that something that you believe was yours being slowly taken away from you, AI taking over the battlefield makes warfare feel detached and well, for a lack of better term, dehumanises the battlefield
>>14421619
>Still, something just seems inherently wrong with AI taking over the battlefield.
From your limited perspective/opinion.
So, no, there isn't.
>>14421655
Yeah, war, the great treasure of humanity. It should be protected. Let's set up a war reservation.
>>14420596
Kind of believe that part of advancing as a race in general is doing our own shit. We're already coddled to laziness today.
>>14421670
Couldn't the same be said of you?
Also this anon is right.
>>14420726
>>14421682
Stupid.
>>14419943
>>Today's generation of fighter pilots could be the last of their breed,
Isn't it what they said in Top Gun?
>>14421685
Why? I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything because it's not how things have worked in the past.
>Humans have been on the battlefield before there was AI, so that means AI shouldn't take over the battlefield
I mean, you really don't see the logical flaws in that?
>>14419943
As impressive as this seems there is still the same serious issues present:
1: Obviously enough dynamic engagement. Sure this A.I. can fuck up another plane in a nice straight one on one (with a handicap) which is impressive, but the obvious lack of a moral precedent. War is not a simple engagement of Boolean logic, remember when that Turkish fighter jet was shot down by Russian AA, or the numerous time drones have accidentally killed dozens at weddings and funerals because the one target was present? Building a combat capable A.I. and building a morally deciding A.I. are =/=.
2: Electronic vulnerabilities, If it is a computer system it can most likely be tampered with, all you would have to do would is change one identifying piece of code from [Enemy_contact ] to [Friendly_contact] and clip it's wings. After all it is running on only a 35$ RaspberryPi, and where a human pilot can resort to sensory input and understanding of the combat zone, an A.I. only has the sensors of the plane, which can be outright destroyed or altered.
3: Specific countermeasures. Even without altering the composition of the mind of the A.I. the pure fact that it is an A.I. can be taken advantage off. I am not a computer expert but i do know that machines are far more temperamental than humans in regards to specifics. Broadcasting phoney/incorrect radio id's, super sonic radar shadows, disguising heat signatures. Undoubtedly there are ways of tricking and altering the sensory and information based elements of the battle field to confuse and destroy enemy drones.
>>14421678
oh no I wasn't saying it should be protected, my response towards this
>something just seems inherently wrong with AI taking over the battlefield.
wasn't that I agree that there's something wrong with it, I'm simply suggesting that it may feel wrong to him because of some sense of attachment some people have towards the idea of a battlefield since forever it's been the realm of man, some people felt something similar when guns were introduced to the battlefield and again when long range missiles came to play.
personally I think there are societal risks that comes with relegating the battlefield to non human combatants but we've taken that risk before with varying consequences, each generation brings something new that would increase the distance between the combating sides, this is just the next step
>>14421735
Sorry, I should have quoted his post in the first place rather than yours.
>>14421730
>remember when that Turkish fighter jet was shot down by Russian AA
Sounds deliberate to me.
>the numerous time drones have accidentally killed dozens at weddings and funerals because the one target was present
Also deliberate.
>>14421746
Okay ignoring the fact that both of those were huge fuck ups, and making a plane exceptional at huge fuck ups is retarded, the point you seemed to miss is ability of a machine to gauge the moral implications of when, how, etc when hitting a target.
>simulator
Fake. It read the pilot's inputs and cheated accordingly.
>>14421698
That's not what he's saying at all. Your twisting his words.
>>14421762
Oh no, I quite agree with you on that matter, you just chose bad examples. Computers will always be dumb no matter how fast they can act because they operate only on a limited range of inputs and lack all capacity for rational thought.
>>14421797
No, it's almost exactly what they've been saying.
>>14420510
All we need are misinterpeted orders.
For example, AI tasked with getting rid of poverty coudl just kill all humans - that woudl mean no poverty at all.
>>14421682
>Kind of believe that part of advancing as a race
what the fuck kind of logic is that? how is killing each other in person vs killing each other with robots any different when the end goal is the same?
>>14421869
You are literally retarded, the only way a AI would ever equate getting rid of poverty with killing humans would be if the programmer put those exact parameters and this is not even going into how dumb the example you used
>>14421730
>or the numerous time drones have accidentally killed dozens at weddings and funerals because the one target was present?
Those drones had American operators pull the trigger, Anon. They are kinda hell-bent on preventing darkies from breeding.
And that jet was shot down after the Turks had plenty of time to recognize it, get a bead on it and pull the trigger. If you got that much prep time, even cold war Soviet gear can take down modern stealth-bombers.
>>14420510
What about viruses?
>>14421843
They're saying what's to stop our society from becoming the next mongol empire if we never have to risk the lives of our soldiers?
>>14421869
Wouldn't it be more logical for it to just kill the poor?
>>14422008
Does your computer tell your stupid ass to eat rat poison when it gets a virus or does it simply crash? Also do you seriously think they will let AI use open wifi? Tell me how many of our drones have been hacked until now
>>14421880
>how is killing each other in person vs killing each other with robots any different
Easy, you have inherent risk to your own life when you fight yourself. A war you can fight without personal risk is a war that's far too easy to fight.
>>14422071
>a war that's far too easy to fight.
[citation needed]
you've never had anybody you've ever even MET lose somebody in war
you should be grateful to be so sheltered
>>14422056
WHats stoping us now? We can just bomb most countries into glass if we wanted and yet no country does that, do you think our missile defense wil ldisappear the moment we make AI drones?
>>14422071
And you, do you think the generals giving the orders think about the lives of the soldiers as anything but statistics? The only people who still give enough of a fuck are his immediate officers and themselves
>>14421885
Well, actually, it could be done.
You have a series of variables you can play with, and the objective of the AI itself is to iterate until it comes up with an input to the poverty rate function that returns the smallest value, ideally zero.
Give it a list of individuals and their incomes and allow the AI to take subsets or manipulate values while meeting criteria like "increase minimum wage to X" or "preserve total income of the given set" or even "Z number of people need to make above Y," I'm sure at some iteration it will have functionally taken a crack at "what if we just kill a bunch of poor people" in the form of looking at a subset of individuals who make above a certain amount and deeming that to be a solution to reducing poverty.
Machine learning as is is rather good about solving relatively complex problems with a bunch of crazy variables, automating the trial and error process that'd make a human being lose their mind. The biggest problem is that from a software design perspective, learning algorithms are kinda massive clusterfucks, even for people who know what they're doing.
It's not exactly quantum computing levels of brainfuck, but it's definitely a difficulty spike from what one normally thinks of when they think of algorithms. Shit's hard, and while coders are a special breed of lazy, not all of them are the kind of lazy that pushes you the extra mile to master stuff like deep learning.
>>14422079
>you've never had anybody you've ever even MET lose somebody in war
Actually my father's brother died in Vietnam, so I have.
>>14422082
>And you, do you think the generals giving the orders think about the lives of the soldiers as anything but statistics?
Oh hey Haig, I thought you died 88 years ago.
>>14422082
We are bombing the middle east into oblivion already. Which has destabilized the entire region.
Future wars will be fought with robots. All controlled through a RTS type interface by the best pro gamers of each country.
south korea will be a super power.
>>14422082
Are you secretly Hillary?
>>14422096
the region was unstable before the USA even existed
stop griefing yourself whitey
>>14422095
>Actually my father's brother died in Vietnam, so I have.
go ask your father if he'd rather have his brother or whatever batshit nobility of war you're imagining
ask your grandparents if they'd rather have an honorable battle or their son
>>14422103
>the region was unstable before the USA even existed
It became stable when we put dictators in charge.
Sure they purged people now and then, but it was stable.
>>14422103
Ottoman Empire wasn't that bad.
>>14422105
It's not about nobility. I'm saying that when you fight a war and no one dies, society will become like Teddy Roosevelt who saw war as a fucking game like the heavily armed manchild he was.
>>14422110
"Sorry Mrs Johnson, your son is dead because we're concerned that society might be like Teddy Roosevelt"
yeah that makes sense
>>14422103
You are the perfect example of why such disconnect is terrible for society. You don't even know your fucking history.
You think there are refugees are fleeing because their homeland is more stable than previously?
No, America literally funded the civil war by giving aid and training to Syrian rebels. Several years later and we're bombing the fuck out of Syria in the name of defeating Isis.
Fuck off.
>>14422118
Wars have to have consequences. It's a sad fact, but people have to die.
Tell me, if we fight a war using robots and win, how do people not see war as an inherently good thing? It's a win-win situation, no grieving mothers AND the spoils of victory. What is there to stop people from saying "man that war is great, we should have another one with the next people that piss us off"? Why should they think otherwise, they have nothing to lose unless they lose the war itself. If you think that's crazy, what do you think a proxy war is? It's using something other than your own soldiers to fight a war for you, and guess what? The people have shown they don't give a shit how many syrians or whatever die for American causes.
>>14422118
It's not a difficult equation.
People die = people understand war is bad and is to be avoided. No one wants their loved ones to die.
No one dies = People don't give a fuck and people obsessed with power wreak havoc with no one so much as batting an eye. Because hey, none of us are being affected. So why should anyone care when the gov is completely fucking up other regions?
>>14420159
In a simulator AI can just read inputs from humans too.
>>14422141
>refugees are fleeing because their homeland is more stable than previously
if it was that they'd flee to the first available safer country, not the ones further up Europe that give more handouts
>>14422156
>No one dies
Oh no people die.
Just not people on your side, so there's no reason to care.
>>14422156
That hasn't stopped anyone in the past.
>>14422175
Exactly. Why should we care if no one on our side dies?
That kind of attitude is how we fucking get Super-ISIS.
>>14422186
In the past countries were mostly autocratic and you didn't really have a say.
>>14422188
derkaderka allah jihad!
>Hey akbar they sent a guy with a gun instead of a drone
alllah muhamed derka derk!
>oh shit guess they're okay we'd better stop trying to kill them
>>14422175
This. For relevance, the airport bombing in Istanbul today. If you didn't live in Turkey, or at least close to Turkey and thus have a reasonable fear of this reaching you, you know what most people's thoughts on it were?
"oh, that's a shame. That's really sad"
And then they go about they day. They do not give a shit because it does not affect them.
>>14422186
Ignoring how incorrect you are, are you trying to justify your position by saying the equivalent of "it's always been this way. Who cares if it gets worse"?
>>14422197
We would actually be in Iraq for 100 years like McCain said if robots did the fighting.
Would we care how many Iraqis died in the process? No, just like we don't care how many ISIS kills now. We only cared when our own people could die, which shows that war is only societally bad when it affects people personally.
>>14422197
You're really an idiot aren't you.
That little example isn't even relevant to what we're doscussing.
Let me explain it simply.
ISIS gets followers because people hate the west who keep blowing their shit up.
With AI, we have even more incentive and less risk when blowing up their shit, which would only further serve to unite.
Basically your sole argument thus far can be simplified to "I don't care what my government does as long as it doesn't affect me directly."
You know what, fuck it. I hope that bill Obama wants to pass that brings in millions of refugees somehow goes through.
>>14422236
Not that it's necesarily a refugee thing, but immigrants in America are not immigrants in Europe. They Americanize here, they assimilate, they always have within a generation or two. In Europe they try to turn their new country into their old one.
People bitch about all the mexicans who don't speak english, well guess what? All their kids born in the US do naturally speak english, which shows the assimilation power of America.
>>14422264
it's hard to keep to jihad when our insidious satan society puts bbq pork sammiches, six packs, and smokes on literally every block
>>14422297
I mean shit, do you think the Italians acted like Americans when they came here, or even spoke English? Or the Swedes for that matter? Or the Greeks? Or the Irish? Ok the Irish did, but they were too drunk for anyone to understand what they were saying and so we wrote down that they spoke Gaelic.
Jokes aside, my point is that if mass migration could destroy the US, it would've been destroyed like 4 times already. But it doesn't happen, they just adapt and learn to be American with some flavorings from their original culture.
>>14422358
The best thing any culture can bring to us before assimilation is its food.
Fucking based as fuck Romanians and their pastrami can stay for life.
>>14422358
you don't see an uptick in terror attacks worldwide during the holy months for the Italians, Swedes, Greeks, and Irish
>>14422378
Yeah because they got that shit out of their system 600 years ago when Christianity had a reformation. And guess what? Islam is about 600 years younger as a religion.
>>14422381
Maybe we should wait six hundred years or so then.
>>14422297
the six pack and the smokes don't do much for them, it's the smell of open grilled pork coated with some cayenne, dried chilli and garlic dry rub and bbq sauce that gets them.
>>14422385
Actually I was implying that Islam is in the middle of an upheaval of change compared to how it's been for centuries.
>>14422385
frankly you don't need to wait that long for better or worse social change tend to happen much faster these days, some might argue faster than we can handle.
>>14422393
Eventually they'll mellow out and learn to take it easy.
The problem with any faith is when its adherents don't learn to take it easy in some capacity.
>>14422434
Well it took christians a while, and the reformation was really bloody. It's dangerous, but it'll pass and the world will be better for it.
>>14422434
funny enough they've had their period of taking it easy, being mostly tolerant and were mostly about science and shit, that all went to shit after they lost spain and got pushed out of europe because their leaders were too corrupt and decadent, and then allowing the crazies to be the voice of leadership
>>14420596
A couple of big reasons that don't take into account honor on the battle field.
>Accountability
Already pretty well stated throughout the thread. If it's an AI controlled fighter or foot solider that kills civilians, who should be held accountable is a lot more muddy. If it was a human behind the trigger, then either he, or the officer who ordered the attack/strike would take the fall. You make it an AI, everyone can say 'we didn't do it' and at best you'll get is some low level programmer from the software company or random officer being the fall guy.
>Creates a further disconnect between civilians of nations at war.
War has always been refereed to the continuation of politics by other means. But at the same time, it asks the country that is going to war to make sacrifice 'for the greater good' either by having population being conscripted to fight, giving up commodities for the war effort (rationing.) or paying higher taxes to fund the war effort. One of the major reasons the Americans pulled out of Vietnam War even though the military leaders wanted to put in more ground forces even after the Tet Offensive and Nixon's election campaign sabotaged the tentative peace agreement between the North and South Vietnamese (look it up, Johnson found out, but refused to release it because he said it would irreparably harm the confidence in the presidency that a candidate would commit what was tantamount to treason in order to get elected, granted then Nixon did Watergate.) is because the American military was still built around conscription and as a result, the American people had a larger stake in what was happening. (It influenced politics to the point that Johnson didn't seek re-election even though he would have gotten the democratic nomination in a landslide. You ask your people to go to war, you need to make sure your people believe the war is just because you need their support throughout the war effort, otherwise you'll find yourself out of office.
Flash forward to today where America has an all volunteer military and you had W Bush attack Iraq. The big difference between Iraq and Vietnam is people weren't asked to sacrifice for Iraq, no draft, no rationing, in fact it was one of the only wars in the history of humanity where a government cut taxes while at war. As a result, you had much more apathy from the general population of America since their every day life wasn't affected in comparison to World War II, Korea or Vietnam. That only started to turn when people saw what was happening with the returning veterans and
the whole part about being lied into going to war. Now imagine if humans were taken out of the equation and the invasion + occupation was made up almost entirely of drones and robots. The level of disconnect would be even higher since if a suicide bomber or IED takes out a vehicle filled with robot soldiers, no human life is lost.
>Turns war into a game
Ripped from Gundam Wing but Treize Khushrenada is 100% right on the subject taht if you dehumanize war and just have machines fight on both sides, you just have turned war into a game since neither side is actually risking anything major. This also feeds from the previous point of society no longer being asked to contribute to the war effort and politicians/generals being much more likely to resort to war because there wouldn't be sacrificing any of their own people by ordering attacking. As a result, you would be essentially normalizing war and changing it from where it was seen in the past as a last resort because of the toll it takes on people. Now, it's something that can be used a first option as opposed to a last resort.
>No humanity, no intuition
Robots and drones wouldn't be able to think outside the box and comprehend the context of a situation, they'd only analysis the data and make a judgement based off that.
The term escapes me at the moment, but the fact a human will look at how things will occur beyond just raw data is the reason why they will be necessary over machines, especially in high stake scenarios involving nuclear weapons. A perfect example of this is the Cuban Missile Crisis where the Soviets were building nuclear missile silos in Cuba. If the Kennedy Administration just followed the data and recommendations from the military, it would have set off a chain of events that more than likely would have caused the end of the world as we know it via a massive nuclear weapons exchange between the Americans and Soviets. Because the Kennedy Administration knew this, they were looking beyond the data and scenarios that would involve military solutions to contain the situation since that would only end in escalation. In the end, nuclear armageddon was avoided because you had people on both sides who had their hands on the keys due to the two/three man rules object and not pull the trigger because they didn't want to be the person who lit the powder keg that would lead to the end of the world even if they had orders to do so. (A machine would follow its orders to letter and commit to a launch. Like when a Soviet submarine with a nuclear torpedo was attacked by the US navy and had orders to launch it if the sub got damaged and but only two of the three officers in charge agreed to the launch, so it was avoided.) Granted nuclear weapons are hyperbolic, but that doesn't mean a machine will comprehend similar scenarios on a smaller scale. Like if a foot soldier robot is given orders to eliminate all hostiles in an area and after killing all the enemy soldiers/insurgents, it comes across a civilian child from the enemy faction wielding a knife. Would a machine just analysis the knife and consider the child a similar threat and immediately shoot?
Or would it be able to read between the lines and attempt to calm down and reason with the child in order to deescalate the situation so it doesn't end with the kid getting killed?
>Other variables aka the risks of putting your eggs in one basket
Say we do move to a more robotic based military. Going past things like Skynet and having machines rebel against us. What's to stop scenarios like EMPs where it just has to be a powerful enough to overwhelming the shielding a machine might have. (Don't go and say it would affect humans equally, if we have to pull B-25s, A-24s and P-38 out of museums and use them, we still could.) Or finding the means to upload a malicious program that would shutdown/overload any robot/drone that is currently operating in the field? Suddenly, you've just lost a portion of your military and open yourself up to attack/counter attack. For the most part, a human solider can still operate even in situations where their equipment fails and as long as a gun isn't controlled by electronics, they can use it to defend themselves.
While the objective of war is to inflict maximum damage to the enemy with minimum casualties to your own side. You also have to still create some level of risk and accountability instead of turning war into a game video game more than it already has of pushing buttons and making the only possible downside being losing a bunch of machines. Yes, it's much more efficient, but it will cause much more harm in the long term to both sides as they further dehumanize themselves and others.
>>14421869
The only thing you get out of giving an AI vague orders like that is a parser error.
>>14422490
Or a more recent example, Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov. He was the Soviet air force colonel in charge when the nuclear launch detection satellite in 1983 malfunctioned and said that there was a launch of 5 missiles detected from the United States.
Now missiles travel very, VERY fast and quite frankly, other forms of radar would've picked this up by now. If the data was followed, then he should've signalled for Russia to retaliate. But he said that although he wasn't sure if there was an error, he decided to follow his judgement since nothing else could confirm the date and thus did not send the retaliation signal.
He received no award for his act, but many consider him the man that saved the world.
>>14419943
So the time of AI vs AI is nearing. Soon, they'll be put in tanks and helicopters too.
https://a.pomf.cat/zeoyif.webm
>>14422474
>Robots and drones wouldn't be able to think outside the box and comprehend the context of a situation, they'd only analysis the data and make a judgement based off that.
This is the big reason why the chairforce is fucking retarded in pushing for a force of only automated combat aircraft. Suppose someone outwits the drones entirely or god forbid someone decides to hack them and rewrite their IFF protocols (which for anyone who is skilled enough to beat military encryption codes is probably a piece of cake). You can hack a drone but you cant hack a normal human pilot
>barely relevant to the board's interests.
>>14416121
>>14422658
Stop being mad that you thread didn't get posts
>>14422744
It really does belong on /k/ though
>>14422876
Actually, it belongs on /g/.
>>14422658
I decided to make only one Yukikaze reference for today and I chose this thread. Sorry.
>>14420739
Soldiers do die for nothing, though
Unless you consider the whims of rich people to be something worth dying for. Let's get real, they aren't defending jack shit or muh freedoms 80% of the time. Actual combat for an average american soldier is a series of irritating, labor-intensive tasks and then deaths when an IED goes off on a highway. Saying soldiers die for something is like saying people in factories in the 1800s got crippled or killed by the machinery for a greater purpose.
By all means, tell them the kid died for something to help them in their grief, but it isn't the truth by a country mile.
>>14419943
Jesus, Belka is getting closer and closer to leaving the realm of fiction at this point.
>>14423786
we're nowhere near giant flying carriers yet though
>>14425864
No, but large sea/aircraft with dozens of much smaller supermaneuverable parasite/launched drone fighters are certainly looking more and more likely.
>>14420106
>SPANISH GUITAR INTENSIFIESSupposedly, the first combat AIs in Ace Combat were programmed using the flight data recovered from Pixy's ADFX-02 after it was shot down by Cipher over Avalon Dam.
>>14420726
You're not talking about a dystopian future, anon. You're talking about the US today, we already send drones to kill people. We've already forgotten that even if we don't send a pilot to do that mission people still suffer and die, and that sending drones to do every mission can't change the fact that war is ugly as sin for someone somewhere.
So long as we can live the dream of never putting ourselves at risk we're already blind to the suffering of anyone that's not an American citizen.
>>14426233
Yeah and if robots are doing it for us there will be an even greater additional layer of separation, one society may not be able to come back from.
>>14423179
You missed the point of the post. It's not saying that soldiers in war died for something, it's that it's important that people believe soldiers in war die for something, otherwise it becomes accepted by the general public that soldiers die "for nothing" and it is damaging to society.
Your post is living proof that his post is correct. The fucking irony.
>Year of someone's Lord 2016
>Men gaze at the universe through complex machines sent to float somewhere in space and look at shit and send us images
>Mars and interplanetary travel don't seem that impossible now
>Yet there are still practical problems, like the survival of men in space, let alone on other apparently feasible planets
>Technology advances at a breakneck pace
>Thousands of new possibilities to tackle these problems and go beyond our limits again
>Morons prefer to fund research to bomb the shit out of each other from their offices while drinking a Big Gulp
You know what?
I fucking hate human beans right now, and with all these nationalistic movements and tendencies on the rise you can bet your ass they'll waste time, money, energy and resource over inane ways to kill each other comfortably and without guilty conscience instead of furthering actual scientific progress, exploring space and creating a better world, or at least try to.
>"I'm undefeated in simulated battles!"
>"I've never lost a single battle in any of the simulations!"
Where have I heard that before...
>>14426294
He was a super mega ace all along
>>14426167
You need to stop reading the AC wiki.
>>14426277
is it important they believe in Santa too?
>>14426317
Yeah, faggot, it actually is important that kids believe in Santa Claus too, because while we jaded fucks know Santa isn't real, believing in things like Santa are a hallmark of childhood innocence that helps instill within children a wonder and childishness that carries over to adulthood and leads to compassionate and stable adults.
Some kid who just gets shat on every Christmas and told there's no fucking Santa Claus will probably grow up to be some edgy, bitter, sociopathic/apathetic piece of dog shit.
It is more healthy for society to believe that men from their country going out there to fight in wars died for something greater and noble and pure, rather than everyone being edgy fucks believing it's all hopeless, they died for nothing lel, whatever. Because once it's repeated enough it becomes accepted, and it becomes accepted by everybody, and then we're all fucked because everyone's an apathetic shithead so they become distant and dull and cold.
You don't understand because you're fucking stupid.
>>14426329
Not him but
>Yeah, faggot, it actually is important that kids believe in Santa Claus too
I stopped believing in Santa when I was 5 becauseat the final year in kindergarten the nuns fucked up and there were three Santas for christmas, can you even fucking believe it?
>Some kid who just gets shat on every Christmas and told there's no fucking Santa Claus will probably grow up to be some edgy, bitter, sociopathic/apathetic piece of dog shit.
>/m/, ar/m/chair psychology
>It is more healthy for society to believe that men from their country going out there to fight in wars died for something greater and noble and pure
No, it's only healthy for nationalistic pieces of shit who don't realize wars have always been fought for the benefits of a handful of elites only, you've been drinking the patriotic Kool-Aid for years.
>Because once it's repeated enough it becomes accepted, and it becomes accepted by everybody, and then we're all fucked because everyone's an apathetic shithead so they become distant and dull and cold.
Exactly like what happened for Christmas and "higher ideals" in war? You're a joke man.
>>14426461
>implying Santa doesn't know the Shadow Clone Jutsu
now who's being naive?
>>14426461
Good job not addressing a single thing I said. Do I need to greentext all my shit so your simpleton brain can comprehend it?
>It doesn't matter if they're dying for "elites" or whatever, what's important is that society believes they're dying for something, because if the belief that soldiers die for nothing becomes widespread it leads to a jaded and unhealthy populace and a drop in peoples' confidence in society
Your response:
>so what man I stopped believing in Santa when I was 5 lol soldiers are just puppets dying for the corporations maaaaan
Don't bother replying, you're fucking retarded.
>>14426484
You can't fool me old man, Naruto wasn't there in 1993
>>14426489
I never meant to say anything like that you tourettic imbecile, I was just pointing out your hypocrisy and deluded ideals.
Do you believe kids should be taught the usual bee and flowers stuff when they ask you where babies come from because we need to preserve their "innocence"? You're a deluded retard who never actually had any contact with actual children, they're not living in a world of fantasy and fairytales, they're more perceptive and less frail and "innocent" than you think.
>soldiers are just puppets dying for the corporations maaaaan
Yes, just like they were puppets dying for their rulers since the dawn of society, you're a naive idealitic moron who never opened a book if you think otherwise, war is simply born out of the interests of the elite, soldiers are useful tools that can be used to justify war, because it's easy to make an ideal seem noble through the loss of human lives, it's the same disgusting moral blackmail that religions use with martyrs.
Someone gave his life for this ideal(no matter how questionable that is or even if that's the actual reason they died to begin with), so it's a noble ideal that must be preserved, otherwise those people would have died in vain amirite? Hence the acceptance of the atrocities of war, do you think people who lost family in the war care about ideals? Only deluded fools think that people out there sacrifice their life for noble ideals or the "better good", war is and always was a business like any other, THIS is precisely the reason why if humans stop fighting in person people will forget how atrocious war is, because it's essentially a senseless scam 90% of the times.
The simple fact that you're so shortsighted about what I actually meant and had to get back in your ivory tower of silly idealism only proves how much of an alienated, ignorant and naive fool you are.
>>14426559
Yeah, I have worked with children, in two countries. When kids grow up in some shitty city and are surrounded by a bunch of edgy shitter kids like you, they turn into edgy shitters. Kids from small towns on the other hand still retain a sense of wonder and excitement. Maybe you are just a faggot.
>>14426559
How fucking retarded are you to type out all that shit and not realize that the person you are replying to didn't even say that soldiers aren't puppets? The post said regardless of what they are, it is important society believes they're dying for something.
How
fucking
stupid
are
you?
>>14426567
>EDGY
>EDGY
>EDGY
Hmmm yeah, good points you have there, you sure showed me.
Here's your (You), keep spreading your Kool-Aid, after all, the more you repeat it the more people accept it, so it's fitting.
>>14426573
All your posts are you responding to shit I never said by insulting me. Since you are either intellectually dishonest or incapable of understanding my arguments, I am simply meeting you on your level.
>>14426329
>kids being told Santa isn't real means bad childhood
What? My parents told me Santa wasn't real as soon as they could, and that they buy the presents. So Christmas is still a day where you get lots of new toys, but they don't come from an old fat guy, oh boo hoo. Didn't dampen my excitement for Christmas in the slightest.
>>14426571
>and not realize that the person you are replying to didn't even say that soldiers aren't puppets?
Because that isn't the point of the discussion?
Nice to see that the reading comprehension in this thread is non existent.
Let me be less cryptic though, just ot be clear.
The whole problem with that moron's ideal is not the fact that soldiers might or might not be puppets for someone else, which is precisely what soldiers are, by definition.
It's the fact that society believes they're dying for some noble ideals when the truth is far different from that, and that is precisely how people justify wars, especially americans, to bring democracy or freedom, to uphold human rights, whatever, the only reason people can find to justify war is that war is fueled by human lives, that's the atrocity behind it and that's the whole argument against using drones since it would become something even more atrocious when humans aren't even directly involved anymore.
>>14426578
>All your posts are you responding to shit I never said by insulting me
Are you clinically retarded?
You claimed that kids not believing in Santa would grow up as sociopaths and unstable human beings, and I jokingly proved you wrong, because you have no basis to assert this garbage.
Then you sais that what's dangerous about people saying that war has no meaning is that the more they repeat it the more people accept this, which is exactly what happened with Santa Claus and a lot of other things.
But somehow for you I didn't address your issues, so it's safe to say you're either drunk or have the mental capacity of an ice cube in a hot sunny day.
>>14426608
Lol, you have no right to talk about reading comprehension after writing a paragraph about shit I never said and basically fucking up understanding everything you've replied to. You're a total retard and a dipshit.
Since you're this incapable of holding a discussion I'm just going to stop replying to you. You can consider that a win if you want.
>AI-controlled fighters
Soon Achmed won't need his Stinger, he'll just down the aircraft with an old Toshiba laptop and an antenna while drinking halal soy latte at Starbucks.
>>14426623
>you have no right to talk about reading comprehension after writing a paragraph about shit I never said
This kind of denial is pretty fucking pathetic son.
First you throw the stone and then you hide the hand, not surprising considering your distorted ideals.
But please, do explain how it's good for society to believe in some false ideals and live in wishful serendipity instead of looking at things objectively and working to make society better.
And for the record, since you apparently also fail at reading between the lines, I've never said that war doesn't have meaning, I've only said that the meaning behind it, the very one you keep saying is necessary for people is much less noble and far more twisted than you want to admit, so it's precisely because of that meaning that war is inhuman and shouldn't be fought by machines, unless you want it to become even more inhuman.
>>14426649
Achmed wouldn't drink at Starbucks though, that's pig american brand slave of capitalism.
>>14426662
>And for the record, since you apparently also fail at reading between the lines, I've never said that war doesn't have meaning, I've only said that the meaning behind it, the very one you keep saying is necessary for people is much less noble and far more twisted than you want to admit, so it's precisely because of that meaning that war is inhuman and shouldn't be fought by machines, unless you want it to become even more inhuman.
You are one dumb fuck, aren't you?
>>14420726
>>14426559
>You can't fool me old man, Naruto wasn't there in 1993
Replication techniques go back long before Naruto. I just used the popular terminology to make it easy for everybody to understand.
If you watch enough kung fu vs ninja movies you'll see it show up there sometimes.
Same as substitution jutsus and stuff.
It's like how Harry Potter throws in real magic stuff sporadically among the bullshitrius spells, or how Dragonball occasionally did stuff like Saiyuki early on.
>>14426731
>real magic
>>14422490
You know, it's pretty crazy how close we seemed to skirt the edge of the abyss during the Cold War. I wonder how many alien races out there wipe themselves out when they get nuclear weapons.
>>14422520
I think his reasoning was that if the US was really going for a first strike, they would've launched more than five missiles.
>>14419995
electronic warfare
As long as you got an AI aircraft, the enemy will try to hack into. You'll need people to try and stop that from happening.
>>14426582
Not him but it's fine for you, you didn't grow up poor. It's easier to teach a kid they're at fault for not getting gifts that year because of mishaving, then to tell them "sorry kid, you don't get shit and your friends do because you were born in the wrong family"
>>14430543
There was that, but he also said that the information while he didn't think it was fake, didn't seem reliable if nothing else could confirm it.
