Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

A human may call the kill order, but that order is based upon information the robots/computer/machine gives them.

How many people have died from bad code, thats more worrying.

I think if we had actual people on the ground engaging the enemy using traditional warfare, it's pretty much a given there would be more casualties on both sides. From that standpoint drones are preferable --they offer an asymmetrical aspect to the war, so it might seen it as unfair, but that's beside the point as IEDs are seen as unfair as well. With UAVs Fewer friendlies die, and fewer civilians on the enemy side die due to the more precise aspect of the engagement. Even with the misses, drone engagement results in fewer casualties for both sides.

Look at it this way, if the US had had drones during the VN conflict, the US would not have incurred 50,000 casualties and the VC would not have suffered ~2,000,000 casualties. We'd have gone after the Võ Nguyên Giáps of the conflict.

Is there any evidence that the information provided by any technology for a drone attack has been inaccurate because of a bug or bad code?

It's not like the government is using machine learning to categorize likely terrorists and then blowing them up in their homes.

1. is there any evidence supporting the existence of a bug free system?

2. you're probably over-simplifying the actual process in which we algorithmically identify and eliminate terror threats. which i'd bet for all intents and purposes is just as scary.

my point here is that you, like you identified of your parent's post, are operating under quite a few assumptions.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact