Frightening vision of next-generation drone strikes.

Frightening vision of next-generation drone strikes.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Frightening vision of next-generation drone strikes.

https://youtu.be/HipTO_7mUOw

32 comments

  1. don’t worry cia have a version with “naturals” deaths

  2. don’t worry cia have a version with “naturals” deaths

  3. #NanoWeapons are Logical in a #TwistedWorld Gideon Rosenblatt​

    #FaceBook and #FaceRecognition

    David Amerland​

    Michel Reibel​

    Errol Doebler​

    Ramón González​

    Oleg Moskalensky​

  4. #NanoWeapons are Logical in a #TwistedWorld Gideon Rosenblatt​

    #FaceBook and #FaceRecognition

    David Amerland​

    Michel Reibel​

    Errol Doebler​

    Ramón González​

    Oleg Moskalensky​

  5. This has been among my larger concerns for some time.

    Technology reduces costs. Data and information processing are force multipliers. Ranged attacks create risk asymmetries for attacker and victim.

    This is going poorly.

  6. This has been among my larger concerns for some time.

    Technology reduces costs. Data and information processing are force multipliers. Ranged attacks create risk asymmetries for attacker and victim.

    This is going poorly.

  7. Edward Morbius, yeah, I tend to be one of those “technology is a neutral vessel –

    the ethics depend upon the application” kind of guys. But cheap, mass drones like this just seems to be one of those inherently destabilizing ideas…

  8. Edward Morbius, yeah, I tend to be one of those “technology is a neutral vessel –

    the ethics depend upon the application” kind of guys. But cheap, mass drones like this just seems to be one of those inherently destabilizing ideas…

  9. Thanks again !!!

    The SetUp Image is Interesting …

    The #MorallyShallow folks see BAD …

    #TheRegularFolks see HOPE !!!

    #RobotsRobots !!!

  10. Thanks again !!!

    The SetUp Image is Interesting …

    The #MorallyShallow folks see BAD …

    #TheRegularFolks see HOPE !!!

    #RobotsRobots !!!

  11. Gideon Rosenblatt Longer thoughts:

    plus.google.com – Technology is about reducing costs. Some costs are best not reduced. Data, …

    I invite Michael J. Coffey in particular to read the bits about individual vs. collective actions there, and perhaps comment on this thread.

  12. Gideon Rosenblatt Longer thoughts:

    plus.google.com – Technology is about reducing costs. Some costs are best not reduced. Data, …

    I invite Michael J. Coffey in particular to read the bits about individual vs. collective actions there, and perhaps comment on this thread.

  13. Is it supposed to be generating or generation? Generating almost makes sense so I can’t collapse the distribution.

  14. Is it supposed to be generating or generation? Generating almost makes sense so I can’t collapse the distribution.

  15. Deen Abiola, you can tell pretty reliably when I post from my auto-correcting phone.

    Generation.

  16. Deen Abiola, you can tell pretty reliably when I post from my auto-correcting phone.

    Generation.

  17. Edward Morbius, actually, you should open up comments on your post. You developed some much more interesting ideas there.

    these didn’t simply make the previously-experienced level of corresponding activities easier, they raised the total amount of the activity, tremendously.

    Yeah, this is the problem. Dropping the cost of something tends to make it much ubiquitous. In this case, that is a nightmare.

    The other thing I thought was so interesting about this piece was how easy it is to cover up the potential horror of something by noting that it is, of course, only to be used on the “bad guys.”

  18. Edward Morbius, actually, you should open up comments on your post. You developed some much more interesting ideas there.

    these didn’t simply make the previously-experienced level of corresponding activities easier, they raised the total amount of the activity, tremendously.

    Yeah, this is the problem. Dropping the cost of something tends to make it much ubiquitous. In this case, that is a nightmare.

    The other thing I thought was so interesting about this piece was how easy it is to cover up the potential horror of something by noting that it is, of course, only to be used on the “bad guys.”

  19. Gideon Rosenblatt Even if I could toggle comments status by post easily (I cannot), I’m not willing to do so for reasons.

    I’m having the conversation in several other places.

  20. Gideon Rosenblatt Even if I could toggle comments status by post easily (I cannot), I’m not willing to do so for reasons.

    I’m having the conversation in several other places.

  21. Edward Morbius Which places?

    Gideon Rosenblatt Thanks!

  22. Edward Morbius Which places?

    Gideon Rosenblatt Thanks!

  23. Gideon Rosenblatt On the Jevons Paradox thing, there’s an interesting observation about both whales and supersized shipping that I’ve mentioned before.

    It turns out that whales being, well, whales, as described by size, is a relatively recent evolutionary adaptation. It’s occurred within the past 3-5 million years or so, short on such timescales.

    And the reasons for that adaptation are that:

    1. Oceans opened up (no ice).

    2. There were large available food stores to be had.

    3. Located far from each other, and often only seasonally available.

    4. Hydrodynamics strongly favours large shapes over small for speed.

    5. Getting to a food source the fastest is an evolutionary advantage.

    6. Feeding and elimination systems made for very effective loading and unloading of, erm, “cargo”, before and after processing.

    Earlier whales largely fed in fairly diverse coastal zones and tended to be smaller — porpoise to orca sized, roughly. Large, but not whales.

    Transoceanic shipping is similar.

    Ports are distant from one another. Containerisation made loading and offloading more efficient. Stops are infrequent. Risks from attack are few. Large size favours both speed and port-side logistics.

    The thing is, both models give you a recipie for encouraging smaller systems:

    1. A less-uniform environment, with fewer options for long-range travel.

    2. Largely localised food stores, available on an ongoing basis.

    3. No compelling speed advantage, and dynamics which make large size a disadvantage (e.g., maneuverability, insufficient per-individual food).

    4. A hostile environment with active attackers favouring response / maneuverability and/or combat capabilities.

    5. No first-mover advantage (or a strong “already-in-the-neighbourhood” locality preference) for food / income.

    6. Cumbersome or rate-limited onboarding / offboarding processes.

    I suspect these principles are generalisable, and can be approached from several perspectives:

    A. What conditions do I need to favour large size / centralisation?

    B. What conditions do I need to favour small size / decentralisation?

    C. How do I disrupt a competitor that functions best at some particular scale of operations?

  24. Gideon Rosenblatt On the Jevons Paradox thing, there’s an interesting observation about both whales and supersized shipping that I’ve mentioned before.

    It turns out that whales being, well, whales, as described by size, is a relatively recent evolutionary adaptation. It’s occurred within the past 3-5 million years or so, short on such timescales.

    And the reasons for that adaptation are that:

    1. Oceans opened up (no ice).

    2. There were large available food stores to be had.

    3. Located far from each other, and often only seasonally available.

    4. Hydrodynamics strongly favours large shapes over small for speed.

    5. Getting to a food source the fastest is an evolutionary advantage.

    6. Feeding and elimination systems made for very effective loading and unloading of, erm, “cargo”, before and after processing.

    Earlier whales largely fed in fairly diverse coastal zones and tended to be smaller — porpoise to orca sized, roughly. Large, but not whales.

    Transoceanic shipping is similar.

    Ports are distant from one another. Containerisation made loading and offloading more efficient. Stops are infrequent. Risks from attack are few. Large size favours both speed and port-side logistics.

    The thing is, both models give you a recipie for encouraging smaller systems:

    1. A less-uniform environment, with fewer options for long-range travel.

    2. Largely localised food stores, available on an ongoing basis.

    3. No compelling speed advantage, and dynamics which make large size a disadvantage (e.g., maneuverability, insufficient per-individual food).

    4. A hostile environment with active attackers favouring response / maneuverability and/or combat capabilities.

    5. No first-mover advantage (or a strong “already-in-the-neighbourhood” locality preference) for food / income.

    6. Cumbersome or rate-limited onboarding / offboarding processes.

    I suspect these principles are generalisable, and can be approached from several perspectives:

    A. What conditions do I need to favour large size / centralisation?

    B. What conditions do I need to favour small size / decentralisation?

    C. How do I disrupt a competitor that functions best at some particular scale of operations?

  25. Thank you for sharing, Gideon Rosenblatt. Truly frightening vision.

  26. Thank you for sharing, Gideon Rosenblatt. Truly frightening vision.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: