The Military Thread

So basically a cuter looking General Purpose Infantry Unit.

Yes, even the writers for Call of Duty of all things saw this wave of hot takes coming.

Sure but the thing needed to get there isn’t AGI, it’s the development of a viable physical platform that can perform the required tasks, for that development you want to look at robotics development more than AI development.

Also I’m not convinced that people will react well, a soothing voice does not change the fact that you’re dealing with a murder machine sent by a foreign country trying to exploit your nation, they’d be viable in a number of situations, but trying to build relations with locals in a third world country? That’s not one of them.

Again, what would the AGI enable the drone to do that isn’t currently done by a drone?

Also drones are bloody expensive, massive cost reductions are what will make this stuff mainstream, because for a long time it’s going to still be cheaper to train and pay a 19 year old than build and maintain one of these things.

edited 16th Nov '17 3:02:18 AM by Silasw

A soothing voice and calm mannerisms while doing something while enforcing a public order you disagree with? Suuure, that's not pure creepy recipe

The answer is simple Silsaw, an AGI is to drones, what fire and forget is to missiles.

Instead of needing constant input like today, or like missiles did back in the days of semi active, it would get ONE command and then act to fulfill that.

You point out a target for it to destroy, and it will do the rest, there is no jamming, or disruption of comunication because there is no comunication to be had.

There are 3 levels of learning machine and I think your thinking of the wrong ones.

AI = Specialized learning systems, they may meet or exceed humans in a very narrow feild but that's it. They are what we have now and what your thinking of.

AGI = Generalist systems that meet humans across the board and may exceed in a verry narrow area depending on function, any mental task a human can do an AGI can also do. For them the only reason to have a human in the loop at all is acountability. We don't have them yet but there expected in the late 2030s - early 2040s range.... which may seem early, but we are already starting to exceed humans in feilds thought of as distinctly human like object recognition today....

ASI = Exceed humans across the board in such a way they are alien to us, expected within 100-200 years, but not worth thinking about due to the fact we are unable to comprehend what they may be like... These are the ones that actualy scare scientists, not your garden basement killbot, and the fear comes from the alien nature, not due to expected mallice.

@handle : Your taking me way too literaly there, the point is they can act human, and emulate empathy..... soooo any creepy factor that isn't from you know being a warmachine is something humans would also have.

Maybe tachikoma are a better example, they are a fictional version of an AGI, and I am inclined to belive something that acted and talked like them would at the very least be tolerated.

It's not going to be doing diplomacy itself, but it's not going to be too much more inflammatory to the locals either.

edited 16th Nov '17 3:25:03 AM by Imca

I agree with the comparison, which is exactly my point, from a counter-insurgency perspective that’s worthless. It’s effectivly a giant fire and forget missile, sure it’s neet, but it’s not going to change the reality on the ground, it’s not going to reduce casualties, it’s not going to build peace.

Cool, but again that’s worthless for counter-insurgency, the ability to destroy a target with no risk to the operator or way to stop the strike is something that the US already has.

Like I get it, you can out an AGI drone in the sky over an area and have it take out any target that pops up, beyond returning to base for fuel, maintenance and missiles it needs nothing.

That’s an advantage when it comes to warfare against opponents who might utilise jamming technology, it’s an advantage for covert strikes, it’s an advantage when operating in areas where you can risk a pilot.

But it doesn’t help at all with the basic mission of a counter-insurgency, building a peace so that targets stop popping up.

edited 16th Nov '17 3:26:24 AM by Silasw

Oh. Yeah. Tachikoma are adorable little tanks with enormous machine guns that you want to hug.

It will reduce casulties if you give it a proper cassis.... this jsnt just a smart predetor drone here... due to one reason.

It can suplant, even if not fully replace man power.

If a squad starts consisting of say 1 or 2 humans and 6 robots, and you loose that squad, that is less casualties then if you lost a squad now... yet that squad should be able to a complies the same job, you don't need 8 men on the diplomacy for every squad.

There is a bit of a problem in that those 1-2 humans become prime sniper targets, or just in general prime first targets..... but that seems like a problem that can be adapted too with time, just like how officers were in ww-I

I am not arguing that with them you won't need humans, my argument is that with them you would need LESS humans.

I don't know if that's sincerity or sarcasm but I really do find tachikoma awfully hugable for war machines. ._.;

edited 16th Nov '17 3:35:02 AM by Imca

No, no, I'm being absolutely sincere.

OH MY GOD I WANT TO TAKE THIS LIFE-THREATENING WEAPON HOME!

But that’s what will reduce them, the cassis, not the AGI, hell even beyond the possibility of remotely controlled humanoid combat machines you can have squadmate controlled ones.

Also some times you do need 8 humans on a mission, because it’s about providing a calming presence, it’s about being able to interact with you, counter-insurgency is already done with fewer troops than it should be, cutting the numbers further won’t help.

There are small improvements that will come as AGI and AI develop, self driving vehicles will allow for patrols to not have a driver and instead have that person focus on the surroundings (also a vehicle that can come to a pinned down team if they wonder away from it could become a thing), an AGI in the sky will allow for much better air support and target identification in advance (though it runs into the big issue that exists now, the cost factor of putting a bunch of drones up in the sky), remotely controlled robots (with control being either squad level or base level) will allow for more secure construction/housing storming/scouting/ect (that’s already happening by the way, the IDF have a small drone used by squads and bomb disposal bots have been a thing for ages).

It will change things, but it’s not some massive shift, because the basic facts of occupation haven’t changed since one bunch of apes decided that they wanted to control the hangout of some other apes, you gotta put bodies in the zone to exert control.

Isn't Territory Occupation and Defense the Army's job specifically?

It's touched on in films like Elysium and even Chappie - the robots are there, but they actively encourage a les e faire attitude from the ruling body and increase risk aversion from actual flesh and blood troops.

I think teufal has a point in that, in practice, the military and government will never fully automate - they will always want SOMEONE accountable or pulling the trigger.

Corporations, or less salubrious non-state actors - if they ever acquired both the tech AND the manufacturing capability, then maybe we'd drift to some form of cyberpunk reality. But then there is the allure of robotics - to wound a human, you need a single lucky bullet to remove them. And that bullet can hit mostly anywhere.

Have a tracked robot, or drone or even some form of quad bot, up armoured, with an inability to feel pain - you increase the amount of munitions needed to disable or disrupt. Then the act of beating the opponent becomes one of wearing their economy down, rather than their morale (Which was touched upon).

Anyway, I feel I've hijacked a current affairs thread for military with a speculative AI use in warfare theme!

There are two scifi threads; equipment and tactics, strategy (logistics and operations, etc.) that this could fit in and has been discussed on. Go nuts.

Raised it in there, so hopefully can pick it up!

Back on current track, as mentioned the cuts to Amphibious capability AND an article from a form Commander JFC:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/14/british-forces-no-longer-fit-for-purpose-former-uk-service-chiefs-warn

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/05/royal-navy-could-lose-its-two-amphibious-assault-ships-in-cuts

Rather maddening. I'm sure that the businesses sector would love it if they could go all G 4 S on the Army. Which weirdly wouldn't be far from how militaries ORIGINALLY ran, with retained troops raised by private individuals...

But I thought the UK was perfectly capable of fending for itself post-Brexit?

In all seriousness, given the rise of PMCs and the leasing of military hardware, I wouldn't be surprised for that to be attempted soon.

If it's any consolation, I hear the Argentinean Navy isn't doing too well either...

At least the Argentinians still have carrier aviation.

No carriers, but whatever.

If we recreated the Falkands war now, it'd basically be akin to watching two geriatrics flailing over a spilled cornetto.

Though if I was the Argentines, I'd have a crack now... good way to distract from issues at home and great way for a populist leader to cement support. I think we'd be

a) hard pushed to react

b) hard pushed to get international support

The USA would certainly not back us; the EU would see no point. Hell, it might actually motivate Spain to start shouting loudly about Gibraltar.

I can see it going that way. And the way it's being publicised across media is not a good look.

In other news - interesting commentary on Japan considering their move to move away from being a "defence force"... need to find the article...

You're... aware that the UK is a NATO member, right? I doubt other members would just sit by and watch the Argentinians invade one of their allies.

Aren't the Falklands located outside the area covered by Article 5?

Isn't that just what happened in the Falklands War?

If I'm not mistaken the US went out of their way to get the latest Sidewinders then shipped to the British task force, which helped in air combat.

A quick return to the question of responsibility of highly capable weapons. Just like with today's advanced strikes it is a chain of responsibility.

The individual who ultimately causes the weapons release has responsibility. The people who programmed or gave the coordinates, target profiles, and authorized those weapons use have responsibility. Also the planners and commanders who put the mission together. Basically there are a number of levels of people involved to release even single guided bomb or other smart weapon. When one of these missions goes awry they look up and down the chain which is partly the investigations can take so long.

As for Falklands 2.0. That would be a roiling mess. Both the UK and Argentina have depleted militaries but Argentina has a lot of home problems. A second Falklands could just as likely result in more home problems as the local government is not exactly widely popular.

Yeah, the US didn't back the Brits, except for the parts where they did. Someone else mentioned the sidewinders, and the US also deployed forces to Europe to take over a lot of the UK's NATO obligations, freeing them up to deal with the Falklands.

Not the first time the US has been neutral-not-neutral in a conflict the UK found themselves in. Pretty sure it isn't even the third time that happened.

The US also fed the Brits everything its satellites had on the Argentine military movements, not to mention intelligence in general by the CIA.

Also the whole thing with the Iwo Jima.

The Royal Navy is bad but it’s nowhere near Argentinian Navy levels of bad, half of the Argentinian Navy can’t even leave port.

That and while the surface fleet of the Royal Navy isn’t doing so well, the silent service have gotten so shiny new toys recently.

Plus the Falklands garrison remains at a reasonable strength, it alone could probably see of any invasion force.