alt Hacker NewsIs there any reason to think that autonomous weapons are a critical strategic capability? It's hard to see what an unpiloted drone can do that a remotely piloted drone can't, other than perhaps human rights violations.
Replies
Remotely piloted drones can't operate at long ranges in a conflict against a near-peer adversary such as China. All of the high-bandwidth communications links will be degraded by a combination of jamming, cyber attacks, and anti-satellite weapons. Remote piloting will only be reliable using fiber optic cables (very short range) or direct line-of-sight transmission. So hardly practical in the Pacific theater of operations.
In an existential conflict no one cares about human rights. That's something for the winners to worry about after the shooting stops.
You don't need modern ai for that, it's been done decades ago.
Modern tools lend themselves more to information warfare and deobfuscation.
Faster decisions, less fatigue, etc.
It can turn around and bomb you.
The simple version: Weapons systems are quickly advancing to the point where many of them can navigate and operate independent of human control. The obvious question here is at which point do we give these platforms release authority for lethal weapons. It becomes impractical to require (or even imagine, really) there to be a human "pilot" operating every single drone when you have hundreds or thousands of them operating in theater. That's really what this is about.
Think of it this way: mines installed in the seabed in wars past were "dumb", in that a passing ship had to happen into it. Imagine systems deployed underwater that were mobile, contained multiple torpedoes, and could strike warships with little to no warning given their small acoustic signature. It's the same principal as a mine (you leave it one spot, hope an enemy ship comes by), but the capabilities are far more advanced. If the system is not at least semi-autonomous than it might as well be a dumb mine again.