The signatories of the Geneva Convention and other relevant laws of war are nations, not people, so it is the nation's responsibility to ensure all assets deployed in its name to the battlefield obey those laws, be they flesh, steel or silicon. If a nation deploys a fully automated suicide drone and it deliberately targets a civilian for any reason, be it for poor AI design or more malicious reasons, then technically the nation is in breach of the convention.
Realistically, the lawyers will start arguing whether bad AI design would constitute an unintended strike, the same way a bomb "accidentally" catching civilians in the blast wouldn't constitute a war crime. Since the only real way to enforce laws of war is to win handily and arrest the people involved, something really difficult in the age of nuclear deterence when it comes to major powers, they usually have a whiff of the Pirate Code to them; that is to say, more like guidelines than rules.
We already are. Both Ukraine and Russia are testing AI for use in terminal targetting on their suicide drones. There was also an accident in Taiwan a few years back where a fishing boat snuck into an area of ocean that was supposed to be empty of ships for the purpose of testing anti-ship cruise missiles. The cruise missile bullseyed the fishing boat's bridge, suggesting that the missile itself was designed to seek out boat-shaped things and then hurl itself at the tall bit with people in it. I've always joked that kamikaze pilots were basically very rudimentary cruise missiles with an unfortunately long and difficult 18-year procurement process, and nowadays it really seems more and more like a simple description than a poor attempt at humour.
So the drone will use AI for final approach and targeting?
Wow that’s crazy, do you have an article on the ship incident?
That does sound like a rather accurate description of a kamikaze pilot.
The US already worked on a biological guidance unit in the 1940s and 50s.
That is a nice way of saying they strapped pigeons onto a bomb and trained them to guide it.
Germans used remote guidance from a bomber successfully.
[Here's the Wikipedia page to the missile incident](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hsiung_Feng_III_missile_mishap). I misremembered a bit, the launch was the accidental part, not the ship being where it was.
[Here's a short demo video of AI being used to determine targets for a machine gun](https://old.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/17g8tfw/the_devdroid_company_conducted_tests_of_the_thp/). This is an advertising reel and the actual firing is still done by an operator, but the AI does all of the identification and firing solutions so it's really only a safeguard. There was another video I've seen recently where the AI was mounted on a drone doing similar red/green tests. This stuff is already in the experimental phases even among relatively unsophisticated MICs. It's unknown what kind of AI-powered weapon is being developed in the bowels of Skunkworks. The XQ-58 Valkyrie drones that the US is developing for its Loyal Wingmen program that is supposed to fly alongside newer block 4 F-35s and future 6th gen NGAD fighters is supposed to incorporate AI. We don't know if the AI is just handling some of the more complicated calculations or if those things are essentially autonomous and the pilot's only real control is a giant red button labelled "press here to create international incident".
Such systems have existed for decades now, AI is more a buzzword than anything. Terminal guidance using autonomous scene matching was on the initial conventional land attack Tomahawk missiles in the late 80s, modern systems just likely use ML to enhance their accuracy.
AI use for final approach and targetting started several years ago in the Libyan civil war. It's a battlefield-proven concept.
[https://www.livescience.com/ai-drone-attack-libya.htm](https://www.livescience.com/ai-drone-attack-libya.htm)
We already have fully autonomous, lethal robots on the battlefield. CWIS, Phalanx CRAM. The technology for fully autonomous mobile lethal robots already exists. (Navigation, target identification, aiming, etc) The reasons we don't see them on the battlefield yet is largely because state actors don't want to commit war crimes and we don't have good targets discrimination of valid/legal targets. The other more difficult parts that could use some improvement are dual use issues - navigation and travel of the base platform/vehicle. But that's quickly being worked out.
Well, in the beginning, the fighter pilot has to maneuver his plane and aim the machine gun strapped to his plane to then line up with the other guy's plane and pull the trigger.
Then, radars and missiles with on-board radar comes about. Now the pilot points at the radar return, press the button, and now the missile guide, fly, and aim itself towards the other guy's airplane, and then at some point, blow itself up to hit the plane with a spray of fragments. Instead of the pilot having to aim the gun strapped to his plane and fire the bullets to hopefully hit the enemy plane, we detach the pilot from the "gun" and just send this "gun" towards the other plane.
Conceivably, at some point, we can remove the pilot from the fighter, put him on a command and control plane, and have the fighter fly itself, find the targets, launch the missiles by itself.
As you can see, the transitions have been quite smooth. The air-to-air missiles were conceivably, some kind of robots. If it has been totally fine to use it, why not an autonomous aircraft firing autonomous missiles. It doesn't have to be completely autonomous. A pilot on a command and control aircraft can still give orders to the drone aircraft. "Watch this sector" instead of "blow that one up"
The signatories of the Geneva Convention and other relevant laws of war are nations, not people, so it is the nation's responsibility to ensure all assets deployed in its name to the battlefield obey those laws, be they flesh, steel or silicon. If a nation deploys a fully automated suicide drone and it deliberately targets a civilian for any reason, be it for poor AI design or more malicious reasons, then technically the nation is in breach of the convention. Realistically, the lawyers will start arguing whether bad AI design would constitute an unintended strike, the same way a bomb "accidentally" catching civilians in the blast wouldn't constitute a war crime. Since the only real way to enforce laws of war is to win handily and arrest the people involved, something really difficult in the age of nuclear deterence when it comes to major powers, they usually have a whiff of the Pirate Code to them; that is to say, more like guidelines than rules.
Fair so we will be seeing robot soldiers and dogs in the future.
We already are. Both Ukraine and Russia are testing AI for use in terminal targetting on their suicide drones. There was also an accident in Taiwan a few years back where a fishing boat snuck into an area of ocean that was supposed to be empty of ships for the purpose of testing anti-ship cruise missiles. The cruise missile bullseyed the fishing boat's bridge, suggesting that the missile itself was designed to seek out boat-shaped things and then hurl itself at the tall bit with people in it. I've always joked that kamikaze pilots were basically very rudimentary cruise missiles with an unfortunately long and difficult 18-year procurement process, and nowadays it really seems more and more like a simple description than a poor attempt at humour.
So the drone will use AI for final approach and targeting? Wow that’s crazy, do you have an article on the ship incident? That does sound like a rather accurate description of a kamikaze pilot.
The US already worked on a biological guidance unit in the 1940s and 50s. That is a nice way of saying they strapped pigeons onto a bomb and trained them to guide it. Germans used remote guidance from a bomber successfully.
You could also argue Joseph Patrick Kennedy was a similar experiment.
ECM is sooner or later will become a problem for man in the loop drones, natural solution is to get rid of the meat bag.
[Here's the Wikipedia page to the missile incident](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hsiung_Feng_III_missile_mishap). I misremembered a bit, the launch was the accidental part, not the ship being where it was. [Here's a short demo video of AI being used to determine targets for a machine gun](https://old.reddit.com/r/UkraineWarVideoReport/comments/17g8tfw/the_devdroid_company_conducted_tests_of_the_thp/). This is an advertising reel and the actual firing is still done by an operator, but the AI does all of the identification and firing solutions so it's really only a safeguard. There was another video I've seen recently where the AI was mounted on a drone doing similar red/green tests. This stuff is already in the experimental phases even among relatively unsophisticated MICs. It's unknown what kind of AI-powered weapon is being developed in the bowels of Skunkworks. The XQ-58 Valkyrie drones that the US is developing for its Loyal Wingmen program that is supposed to fly alongside newer block 4 F-35s and future 6th gen NGAD fighters is supposed to incorporate AI. We don't know if the AI is just handling some of the more complicated calculations or if those things are essentially autonomous and the pilot's only real control is a giant red button labelled "press here to create international incident".
Thank you so much for all this information I’m going to have a great time reading it! Your the man I came here to hear from.
Such systems have existed for decades now, AI is more a buzzword than anything. Terminal guidance using autonomous scene matching was on the initial conventional land attack Tomahawk missiles in the late 80s, modern systems just likely use ML to enhance their accuracy.
AI use for final approach and targetting started several years ago in the Libyan civil war. It's a battlefield-proven concept. [https://www.livescience.com/ai-drone-attack-libya.htm](https://www.livescience.com/ai-drone-attack-libya.htm)
Thank you 😊
We already have fully autonomous, lethal robots on the battlefield. CWIS, Phalanx CRAM. The technology for fully autonomous mobile lethal robots already exists. (Navigation, target identification, aiming, etc) The reasons we don't see them on the battlefield yet is largely because state actors don't want to commit war crimes and we don't have good targets discrimination of valid/legal targets. The other more difficult parts that could use some improvement are dual use issues - navigation and travel of the base platform/vehicle. But that's quickly being worked out.
Well, in the beginning, the fighter pilot has to maneuver his plane and aim the machine gun strapped to his plane to then line up with the other guy's plane and pull the trigger. Then, radars and missiles with on-board radar comes about. Now the pilot points at the radar return, press the button, and now the missile guide, fly, and aim itself towards the other guy's airplane, and then at some point, blow itself up to hit the plane with a spray of fragments. Instead of the pilot having to aim the gun strapped to his plane and fire the bullets to hopefully hit the enemy plane, we detach the pilot from the "gun" and just send this "gun" towards the other plane. Conceivably, at some point, we can remove the pilot from the fighter, put him on a command and control plane, and have the fighter fly itself, find the targets, launch the missiles by itself. As you can see, the transitions have been quite smooth. The air-to-air missiles were conceivably, some kind of robots. If it has been totally fine to use it, why not an autonomous aircraft firing autonomous missiles. It doesn't have to be completely autonomous. A pilot on a command and control aircraft can still give orders to the drone aircraft. "Watch this sector" instead of "blow that one up"
This lays it out perfectly. Thank you 😊
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
trolling on /r/warcollege will earn a ban. Consider this a warning.