I did and all I saw was you playing definition games.
Five minutes of hate news
- Thread starter PsihoKekec
- Start date
And all i saw was you talking about shit you don't know and aren't even interested in learning about in a way that fits your politics.
posh-goofiness
Well-known member
But they aren't for warfare? Or at least those of us who are fearing this technology don't think so. The fear is that those quadruped robots are going to be used for civilian pacification. With the increasingly militarized police I don't think that's an unreasonable fear. It doesn't need to clear a building like @Zachowon asserts. It just needs the ability to walk through open spaces and menace people. Or walk a hundred of them into the next Ruby Ridge and shoot through the walls. Or tear gas a crowd like Karmic said. Or carry that weird sonic weapon everyone heard about that hit the Cuban(?) embassy.
Last edited:
It is more difficult than you think. A gas grenade is useless if people are wearing gas masks.
Robots can't also go over most terrain.a mountain area is the worst place for robots.
The fear that robots will be on the level to be able to replace cops and soldiers is so far away that it is not feasible.
One needs to take into account more than just "FEAR MONGERIN BECAUSE POSSIBILITY!". What can they do know? How effective are they? Why arnt we seeing them replace soldiers already in places like Iraq and Syria?
Why arnt we seeing mass deployment of them in Ukraine?
The drones we see being used are simply there for surveillance and offensive or defensive use from the sky.
Which is easy to avoid if you are in a building or have commercial jammers..
We are no where near the level of having mass produced robots fighting or arresting people
If they want to use these for civilian pacification, why the militarized police though?
After all that's what you would use militarized police for.
What can they do that a basic ass armored car with a machinegun can't when it comes to machinegunning civilian?
Either way, imagine deploying these when they are one clever radioamateur or retard with a can of paint away from being a free weapon attached to a confused computer and some useless parts.
ITT:
Group 1: "We are worried about this new, emerging technology and what it could be used for"
Group 2: "no that's dumb! That's wrong! You don't know what you're talking about! Why isn't it in use? Why don't you see it everywhere?"
Yeah, the emerging technologies part would be Why. This is like saying Elon Musk's starship program which is still in development is a failure because they aren't using it everywhere.
It's an emerging technology, it's new, it's improving and is in active development. That's why it's not being used everywhere. We are concerned about what this might be used for once it's fully developed.
Group 1: "We are worried about this new, emerging technology and what it could be used for"
Group 2: "no that's dumb! That's wrong! You don't know what you're talking about! Why isn't it in use? Why don't you see it everywhere?"
Yeah, the emerging technologies part would be Why. This is like saying Elon Musk's starship program which is still in development is a failure because they aren't using it everywhere.
It's an emerging technology, it's new, it's improving and is in active development. That's why it's not being used everywhere. We are concerned about what this might be used for once it's fully developed.
But i've already mentioned one reason...
This technology was tried and considered by many military powers since longer than any of us are alive.
It's not *that* kind of technology, not nanite gray goo, not even AGI.
On the other hand it is exactly the kind of technology that less than respectable parties in the West are always concerned about, and i also mean since longer than we are alive.
Yeah, robotic quadrupeds and developing AI have been around since before we were born. Sure.
I have a going policy that states if Marduk and Zach agree on something, its probably really fucking stupid.
What's so special about robotic quadrupeds that it warrants concern, other than fitting scifi tropes?
There are *far* nastier, easier and less size restricted ways to use AI to screw with you if someone who wills so has it.
Their small form factor and 4 legs gives them the ability to move across many different types of terrain and obstacles that give a lot of other wheeled and tread options trouble. That's one of the primary concerns.
And yeah. AI has other scary aspects to it as well. We can actually be concerned about more than one thing at a time.
Which goes up to about 0.00000001% of the potential implications of AGI in and of itself.
How is that a concern at all anyway?
Tracked options are well in the territory of "good enough" at navigating terrain already, where are the scary police killbots or something?
If you think these are even remotely close to equivalency, you are having an epic failure of sense of proportion if you think they are.
We could have mass implementation of actual quadruped and biped mechs at the price of a fancy car without AGI, and it still wouldn't have even 0.1% of the impact on our lives as full on AGI would have, even if it needed a warehouse sized server farm to run.
Last edited:
I'm not up to date on all the names of all the logical fallacies, but coming in to dismiss a concern With "yeah well worse stuff exists!" Is bullshit and you know it.
It's like saying hey don't worry about kiloton nukes, Megaton nukes exist, so they're nothing to worry about!"
The topic is the quadrupeds, because that's what the article was about. Sure other things are more dangerous, that doesn't mean that these aren't.
This is not a logical fallacy, this is pointing out the pointlessness of "concern for concernposting sake" over minor engineering advances.
In that analogy, you are telling everyone about the danger of BB guns when everyone is packing a .45 since generations and antimatter rifles may be invented soon.
People will go "oh but a BB gun would be really scary if you loaded it with antimatter BBs".
To which i say, well, plenty of other things get much scarier if you add antimatter to them.
And my argument is, that is not something to be concerned about at all in light of countless other things, unless you are some kind of luddite who just wants to complain about minor advances in engineering existing.
posh-goofiness
Well-known member
Yes, because a mass protest like, say, the Ottowa trucker protests are just teeming with gas mask wearing protestors.
Replace? Who said anything about replace. They are equipment. They are in addition to, not a replacement for the police.
As I previously stated- I'm not talking about military usage. So I'm going to ignore any responses on this topic within that context.
We aren't talking about aerial drones. Stop muddying the waters. This is about the use of quadruped robots with mounted small arms whether than be a gun, a grenade launcher, or any other manner of man portable lethal or non-lethal weapon. Like the military usage stuff, I'm going to ignore responses like this.
Uh huh. Other people in the thread have addressed this so I'll just say that our fears aren't for what is happening right this second. It's for what we can see coming in the future.
How are those different in any fundamental way from tracked robots with mounted small arms whether than be a gun, a grenade launcher, or any other manner of man portable lethal or non-lethal weapon?
Because many police forces have those since several decades.
Any of even crappy old EOD tracked robots can be turned into a remote controlled lethal or non lethal weapon, even cops can improvise it. It actually happened in at least one case, years ago (more than a decade if you also count tear gas), which in effect meant reinventing a WW2 weapon.
Robot-delivered lethal explosive in Dallas police standoff was a first, experts say
Dallas police executed an unprecedented move Friday morning, when officers used a robot-delivered bomb to engage a suspect.
www.pbs.org
Last edited:
posh-goofiness
Well-known member
I'm also concerned about those? Did you think I wasn't or something? The more we militarize police, the more we just let them have tools like this, the more concerned I get. I have stated in other threads that this is my position on the topic. It's not the gotcha you seem to believe it is.How are those different in any fundamental way from tracked robots with mounted small arms whether than be a gun, a grenade launcher, or any other manner of man portable lethal or non-lethal weapon?
Because many police forces have those since several decades.
Any of even crappy old EOD tracked robots can be turned into a remote controlled lethal or non lethal weapon, even cops can improvise it. It actually happened in at least one case, years ago, which in effect meant reinventing a WW2 weapon.
Where are these scary effects of such technology in use by police since the 70's that the concernposters want us to go like this over?Robot-delivered lethal explosive in Dallas police standoff was a first, experts say
Dallas police executed an unprecedented move Friday morning, when officers used a robot-delivered bomb to engage a suspect.
There's just so many different pieces to this that weren't close to working yet before that are much closer now. Self-driving AI wasn't ready yet back when the first tracked robots with guns were made. It is much much closer now. Decision making AI linked to facial recognition (and other types of A/V identity resolution) weren't ready yet. It's much MUCH closer now. Large-scale cellular networking wasn't ready back then. It's here- right now- with 5G cell towers and repeaters going up everywhere. Networked and searchable CCTV surveillance wasn't ready back then. It's been ready since the 2000s (needed cheap mass storage and good computer vision AI). Sentiment analysis back then relied on labor intensive polling and (you guessed it) weren't ready yet. It has been since the 2010s with mass scraping of social media that then gets run through NLP-based AI (I actually worked on this problem for a previous job).
All of this is applicable to these quadrupeds as much as the tracked version of these robots.
Basically, I'm really unsure why you think this is a gotcha. It isn't. It's just another example on the great, big pile of shit.
mrttao
Well-known member
No, AI experts also agree this is dangerous and the tech is being misused.
mrttao
Well-known member
He was using what is called a whataboutism.
Specifically the most textbook hard whataboutism which is also a strawman.
> you: I am concerned about X
> him: Y exists that is worse and/or predates than X. your post complaint about X, therefore you clearly think Y is a good thing and X is a bad thing. Therefore you are a bad person and your opinion is discarded because only an evil person will support Y.
X in this case is armed killer quadruped drones being used by govt to kill people
Y in this case is armed killer remote controlled cars used by govt to kill people
He uses this logical fallacy very often. for example:
where X is big pharma developing new covid variants in a lab.
and Y is govts funded bioweapons programs.
You don't have to be a luddite to be concerned about AI and combat drones increasing prevalence in warfare, and their possibilities for domestic operations/LEO use/abuse.
You and @Zachowon are being real disingenious about this, by saying that 'because it's not a threat now, you shouldn't worry about it's implications for the future', which is what pretty much everyone else is saying.
And the issue is, by the time drones have hit the levels we are worrying about, it's to late for anything but a Carrington event scale EMP to stop/reverse.
This frankly reads as trying to keep the public from being concerned about the emerging abilities militaries and LEOs would really prefer the public to not worry about, because it makes them easy to use against them/your foreign enemies if the general public aren't concerned about and trying to restrict escalating drone capabilities as they relate to domestic abuses by governments.
Edit: Also, frankly, all one has to do is look at all the wide variety and diversity of drone operations in regard to Russia's invasion of Ukraine and their implications for a good idea why the average joe may become increasingly aware of exactly how many ways drones can be used to both surveil and attack targets, as well as the sorts of things needed to even have a chance of combat said drones with domestic abilities if LEO's or even just criminal gangs get a hold of them.
Fuck, drones have found use in the fucking cartel shit around the US/Mexico border already, so it's already an active domestic issue.
Last edited: