Because what could possibly go wrong.

  • awwwyissss@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Human soldiers don’t always say “no” when they should… but this thing will never say no to anything.

  • BilboBargains@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    My friend works in a open cast mine in Eastern Europe. The miners like to drink but it is strictly forbidden. They use mining explosives and one day decide if would be funny to blow up a stray dog. They strap the explosives to the dog and retreat to cover. About to trigger the explosive and turn round to find the dog standing next to them.

  • EmoDuck@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why are people in the comments talking like this is the beginning of an AI uprising? This thing is still remotely controlled by a soldier and not autonomous. It’s about as dangerous as any gun, which is to say, pretty dangerous but nothing we haven’t seen before. If you want an army of weaponised ribo dogs you’d also need an actual army of people to control them

    • V H@lemmy.stad.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Largely, I expect, because of the point you make. Needing an actual army of people to control them becomes a limiting factor. Add on to that that requiring remote control makes them vulnerable to jamming, and there’s a strong incentive to start making them more and more autonomous both to enable fewer soldiers to control more bots, and to allow them to retain some function without it.

      It just largely seems like it will be too significant a temptation.