Tweet
Totally mechanized infantry
Do you think human soldiers will be replaced, in whole or in part, by robotic infantry within our lifetimes?
The advantages of robots are obvious: they have no rights, can be manufactured at will, are much simpler to maintain, are tougher to destroy, perfectly obedient, have no concept of fear, probably react faster, etc. They could probably also work together more seamlessly with each other and with aerial drone support to coordinate attacks. Now, until recently, this was pure science fiction. But an infantryman only needs three basic capabilities:
1. Ability to make someone die.
2. Ability to aim 1 accurately.
3. Ability to move into range and use 1 and 2.
The technology for 1 exists, and robots could presumptively carry a LOT of ammo. 2 and 3 are current hot topics in AI--pattern recognition and navigation--for (I assume) unrelated reasons. Once the costs drop enough, robots will be a tempting option. Yes, there will be the usual "we can't trust life-or-death decisions to a machine" but IIUC infantry is where they put really dumb recruits and anybody who irritates his CO. You can be borderline mentally retarded, as measured by an ASVAB, and still tote a rifle. There will probably be an intermediate phase where all the bots have to be supervised by a bored guy in a bunker somewhere. Then budget cuts and tech advances will quietly weed out the bored guys until their role is purely nominal.
The downside of this is that, if technology advances enough, government by consent of the government will start to seem quaint. You won't need a broad segment of the population to support your rule, provided you have the nerds who make and maintain the robots on your side. You tell a robot to liquidate a kindergarten, the robot says, "sure, no problem." But that's the price of progress, I guess.
Your thoughts?
The advantages of robots are obvious: they have no rights, can be manufactured at will, are much simpler to maintain, are tougher to destroy, perfectly obedient, have no concept of fear, probably react faster, etc. They could probably also work together more seamlessly with each other and with aerial drone support to coordinate attacks. Now, until recently, this was pure science fiction. But an infantryman only needs three basic capabilities:
1. Ability to make someone die.
2. Ability to aim 1 accurately.
3. Ability to move into range and use 1 and 2.
The technology for 1 exists, and robots could presumptively carry a LOT of ammo. 2 and 3 are current hot topics in AI--pattern recognition and navigation--for (I assume) unrelated reasons. Once the costs drop enough, robots will be a tempting option. Yes, there will be the usual "we can't trust life-or-death decisions to a machine" but IIUC infantry is where they put really dumb recruits and anybody who irritates his CO. You can be borderline mentally retarded, as measured by an ASVAB, and still tote a rifle. There will probably be an intermediate phase where all the bots have to be supervised by a bored guy in a bunker somewhere. Then budget cuts and tech advances will quietly weed out the bored guys until their role is purely nominal.
The downside of this is that, if technology advances enough, government by consent of the government will start to seem quaint. You won't need a broad segment of the population to support your rule, provided you have the nerds who make and maintain the robots on your side. You tell a robot to liquidate a kindergarten, the robot says, "sure, no problem." But that's the price of progress, I guess.
Your thoughts?
Comment