Is this one of the stupidest articles you have ever read?
http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/11/19/ban-killer-robots-it-s-too-late
What's the difference between killer robots and land mines? Mobility?
Once you drop a bomb from 30K feet, it's moving and it doesn't always land on its intended target.
Bombs and land mines kill civilians. Why aren't they outlawed?
"Fully autonomous weapons could not meet the requirements of international humanitarian law, Human Rights Watch and the Harvard clinic said. They would be unable to distinguish adequately between soldiers and civilians on the battlefield or apply the human judgment necessary to evaluate the proportionality of an attack – whether civilian harm outweighs military advantage."
And rockets meet the requirements of international "humanitarian" law? Since when is war considered to be "humanitarian?" Does that mean that Palestinians will no longer be legally allowed to shoot rockets into Israel? Rockets are "unable to distinguish adequately between soldiers and civilians on the battlefield or apply the human judgment necessary to evaluate the proportionality of an attack – whether civilian harm outweighs military advantage."
"These robots would also undermine non-legal checks on the killing of civilians. Fully autonomous weapons could not show human compassion for their victims, and autocrats could abuse them by directing them against their own people. While replacing human troops with machines could save military lives, it could also make going to war easier, which would shift the burden of armed conflict onto civilians."
Aparently, as contradictory as it may seem, there's a "legal" way to kill people. I know..., I know..., it sounds like an oxymoron..., probably because a moron came up with it.
Do soldiers "show human compassion for their victims?"
Someone should tell that Syrian autocrat that he's not allowed to abuse his soldiers by "directing them against their own people."
At least replacing human troops with machines could save military lives. Also, once the robots run out of ammo and/or fuel, the gig's up. Soldiers can keep on going.
This is why my picture/avatar/icon used to be a guy beating his head agaisnt the keyboard after reading all the crazy crap on the internet.
Yup.
Side Score: 4
|
 |
It makes sense to me...
Side Score: 3
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
1
point
I think this is stupid because humans can be inherently good or evil, both without logic. But, logically, good is superior to evil. Robots are logical. Therefore, full automated robots, whom are logical, would be good. Meaning that armies of only fully automated robots would be totally moral armies (provided their logic is not flawed even if their design is). Checkmate Isaac Asimov, nigga. Side: Yup.
|
1
point
Actually, as far as stupid articles go, this one may be stupider yet ;) http://www.guardian.co.
Supporting Evidence:
http://www.guardian.co.
Side: It makes sense to me...
1
point
War is retarded in the first place, mostly because it's not a battle of good vs. evil. Conflict is only really just when it's good trying to overthrow evil, but life is almost never so clear-cut in such open-ended conflicts. So personally, I don't think any weapons should even exist at this point in civilization, but that's just me. They're going to be made anyway, and trying to stop them from being made isn't within our power at the moment. Side: It makes sense to me...
|
