The True Cost Of Killer Drones | True Cost | Business Insider
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 сер 2022
- Combat drones have broadcast a large portion of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Drones that crash to the ground as bombs or launch missiles are becoming more and more autonomous. Is it better to have a person pull the trigger or is it OK to let computer algorithms choose between life and death?
MORE TRUE COST VIDEOS:
Why People Risk Their Lives To Harvest Açaí | True Cost | Business Insider
• Why People Risk Their ...
Why Turning America's Yellow Buses Electric Costs So Much | True Cost | Business Insider
• Why It Would Take $200...
Why Flowers Are So Cheap, And Who’s Paying The Price | True Cost | Business Insider
• Why Flowers Are So Che...
------------------------------------------------------
#Drones #Combat #BusinessInsider
Business Insider tells you all you need to know about business, finance, tech, retail, and more.
Visit us at: www.businessinsider.com
Subscribe: / businessinsider
BI on Facebook: read.bi/2xOcEcj
BI on Instagram: read.bi/2Q2D29T
BI on Twitter: read.bi/2xCnzGF
BI on Snapchat: / 5319643143
Boot Camp on Snapchat: / 3383377771
The True Cost Of Killer Drones | True Cost | Business Insider
$6,000 for a nearly guaranteed hit is insanely cheap. Look up Army stats for rounds fired per enemy combatant killed, just that alone exceeds this cost and that's small arms.
@@Noote54 If only that were true
@@Noote54 They specifically trained with a different doctrine I believe starting with vietnam by aiming at human targets to remove that supposed instinct. That shouldnt apply today much I would think. Ammo usage for wars I'm not sure how that helps much. Tons of the shooting is done to suppress the enemy to get tactical advantages. Its not troops trying to avoid killing eachother.
ok jacob
@@Noote54 That's not true.
Lol even when American lives arent at risk and cost have never been lower atill cant do anything right ig🤷♂️🤧😂
What we need is some sort of electronically enhanced signal network that helps all drones move autonomously. We should call it Skynet.
😂😂nice one
@@playalong12 this shit ain't funny its only a matter of time before we're living in a real life terminator movie and that freaks me out a lil bit..lol
🙏
Better than having that control over to the corrupt, biased and inefficient humans
Hey that’s a good one, then next maybe we could invent some kinda of Mecca robot that could replace our soldiers.
But I think it would be weird to just see a metal robot in war so we should give them synthetic skin to seem human.
to be honest, $500 to turn a dirt-cheap grenade into short-range precision bomb is frightening. DJI never would've thought to become an invisible arms dealer someday.
Exactly, one tank or a 1000 of these...
DJI and Toyota have become the world's biggest unknown arms dealer.
This is quite a scary thought that really makes me re-think joining the military
DJI was already used in the arms industry before the Ukrainian war.
I don't believe DJI in Ukraine was misappropriation. It was successful beta test.
Hearing the CEO enthusiastically talking about removing human factor in favor of AI, algorithms and data made me realize this guy's gone full Skynet.
Someone watched Terminator and thought: "this is a brilliant idea!".
Then we are surprised when an AI concludes we are too stupid to survive...
Or we, or Russian and Chinese.
@@FranFerioli Killing people with hand held weapons is okay, but using robots as weapons is somehow the only thing that is evil in war at all; double standards and more double standards.
4:10. The US did not mistake the aid worker for a terrorist. The drone operation saw the guy unloading jerrycans of water to his house in the afternoon with children playing around the car and chose to fire without any type of recon. They had no idea who the guy was and made no effort to find out. The worst part is that the children could be seen playing even as the order to kill them was issued. Totally unacceptable
Actually they had been following him and misunderstood what he was doing
@@ebrucewilliams For 7 hours. In those 7 hours he went to the mosque and to his place of work (An Aid center) where he refilled the jerrycans because he didn't have water at home. They could have easily determine his identity because he an employee at an American aid agency. He made no unusual stops or exhibited any suspicious movements. The US still had a sizeable asset network in Kabul not to forget its cyber intel capabilities. I acknowledge that there have been operational "Grey-areas" in Afghanistan but this one wasn't as the bare minimum threshold groundwork for a strike was not reached. The person who authorised the strike basically chose to kill innocents knowingly. Its like a cop seeing a speeding car and opening fire into it and killing people inside it due to the off chance that they may cause an accident or commit a crime downrange
War crimes again
The whole operation was meant to distract the American public from the disastrous withdrawal in Afghanistan. The Biden Administration needed a "quick and easy victory" they could broadcast. So it chose to drone strike unarmed civilians while falsely claiming victory over ISIS-K.
Isn't that the dogshit person who got pardoned by Trump?
The KARGU-2 kamikaze drone does not dive into the target unless operator give the final command. It has fully autonomous capability. However, the algoritihm was designed to operate with human in the loop. That’s it.
How on God's green earth do you know that? Please take up chess or something
@@gunsnrosesforever100 Because the firm has stated that, and demonstrated human involvement in the process of actually utilizing the drone. It's just too high value of a news to share that "extremely deadly AI robots will wipe us off of the planet". The most ancient form of baitclick.
@@Graham567 hahaha my point was, who reads up on specialized military equipment unless they are in the millitary? I think helicopters and boats are cool, could I name a single helicopter or carrier? NOPE, to me it's a boat with planes and a helicopter is a helicopter. My point is people get down to the nitty gritty of it and say " well actually this fleck of paint was only added in 1950 after the Korean War " as if everyone should know that, it's wild
@@gunsnrosesforever100 In Türkiye, military service is an obligation. I, personally did 15 months. So, when you talk to a Turk about military stuff, you better know that fact...🤨
@@turkergulener8522 fair enough , fair enough, can't argue that
One of Russia's biggest mistakes in invading Ukraine is that it gives western weapons developers a chance to field test experimental weapons under combat conditions against what is ostensibly a near-peer foe. Essentially they gave us a laboratory environment in which to conduct experiments against actual humans. Usually testing - especially destructive testing - is costly. But now, the cost can be offset by potentially taking out real-world enemy hardware, while facing real-world countermeasures.
I bet there's some pretty sick stuff brewing right now. Especially involving drone swarms and killer micro UAVs.
yeah, but the russians also managed to find out that their budget is wasted in yachts for the generals, and also that they have a logistical-line deficiency, so I wouldn't call that a win for us
@@riky_bet Eh, everyone knows they've been a kleptocracy since at least the end of the soviet union. Not like they're going to turn over a new leaf now that it's clear that Pvt. Conscriptovitch (credit to Perun!) has been stealing the hubcaps off of the BMPs for the last thirty years.
Human testing is worth way more than any inefficiencies they may try to iron out. Besides, Russia will never be a major power again, after this. Ukraine will be their grave. Eyes are on China now.
@@Mr_Fission uh, i don't think china will do anything. since Mao died they tell they're gonna invade Taiwan every year, and every year that's only a bluff, also cause china is (military speaking) way less powerful than people think. they do parades and shit (like Russia and north Korea), cause they love propaganda, but in reality even Taiwan alone can smoke their ass, like Ukraine did with Russia, cause Ukraine is weaker than Taiwan, Ukraine is like Iraq.
They don’t send anything that is in development, since they are scared that russia will get it, rather they give their ordinary weaponry combined with tactics, since they know that weapons are good enough its the tactics that u can never test out no matter the money
This has to be one of the best and most intresting comments I have read about this war and take.
"What happens, when the enemy has the keys" We're in Black Ops 2 times, even has the Hunter-Killer drone
I'd be interested to hear how friendly troops in that area feel about this. I'm not sure differentiating between good and bad soldiers is that obvious to these things. I know I'd have huge concerns.
lol whats a good and a bad soldier?
@@Mn9daKing you clearly know what he means, friendly and enemy
@Goat IFF is at least 60 years old tech.
@@markogaudiosi5243 IFF is a concept, not a specific technology FFS. Of course it has evolved since the 40's (that's not 60 years, by the way).
IR strobe lights or IR signals
As a US citizen I am privileged to watch this in the comfort of my home. I can’t imagine what it would be like to be in a war zone and especially with killer drones overhead.
@@FTF-322 I doubt they can see through
@@FTF-322 I am using my knowledge of physics as I'm an engineering undergrad. But I am curious what was going on. I am trying to see how possible that would be with the distances in question and the math isn't adding up.
@@FTF-322 Wonderful. Lemme see that. Thank you
Or to be an enemy against us.
Don't worry you're country will end up destroying itself in war over trible politics. Led by a thrice divorce, Russian loving lier who raw dogs porn stars
When technological countermeasures become common these types of ammunition will be required to have a closed system, that is not reliant on orbital satellites relaying them gps layouts. Instead they will likely utilize a complex algorithm that takes an initial relayed mapping of the terrain and then utilizes realtime analysis to compare the terrain to the initial layout and adjusts flight patterns accordingly based on how or if the terrain changes.
Likely going to mean the removal of most friendly forces when in use just to be safe, but IFF/rapidly changing frequency signals will likely be implemented to help the ai both differentiate between friend and foe, as well as help act as a means to limit friendly fire when engagements are within close enough ranges.
This is how cruise missiles work by having a terrain map inside it's memory
There is an old star treck episode from the original TV series that relates to this.
In the episode, two planets are engaged in simulated war with eachother. Computers generate the casualty numbers and people are randomly selected to be killed.
This was done to reduce the cost of rebuilding after constant bombardment in modern society.
Did the crew stop that from continueing?
Identification of friend and foe is a huge problem for these Autonomous weapons.
its a huge problem in war period bro
gutsy you have no idea what you are talking about and you are uneducated about the subject. Technologically inept people like you should refrain from making such loud statements from things they have absolutely zero knowledge about.
For anyone interested, search for "Challenge-response authentication", "Transponder (aeronautics)" and "Identification friend or foe (IFF)" on wikipedia.
Also, there's no drone that makes "Kill" decision without a human identifying the target as a "foe" and giving a sequence of commands, at least in the US military.
It’s insane to think about the possibility of what can happen to you in the modern battlefield, it isn’t even man to man, a piece of metal can easily take out a soldier who has been training for battle for thousands of hours and in a snap, that could end.
Making soldiers obsolete is probably a good thing in the big picture.
@@wasd____ yes, indeed. But the thing is, making warfare cheaper is gonna incentivize major powers to start more wars. As long as at the end of the day, if a human is the one ordering the shot, I'm ok with drones being used in war.
Thats why war is fundamentally dumb
It boils down these issues.
1. Send a drone rather than a person.
2. It's cheaper to use a drone.
3. It's safer to be on the other side of the world than close to the enemy.
4. Politicians can justify using a drone rather than a person.
5. Businesses can make more money using drones.
6. You have to train a human but you can program a drone.
7. As long as the civilians are not being imposed upon, politicians can pretty do as they please.
8. Most important, what is the bottom line?
The bottom line is: If the attack goes across the ocean, the retaliation will be like that too
you get it, thank you
Drones can be used to control civilians - F great.
@@SentenceIsNot can we talk privately please
The bottom line is: 8. Most important, what is the bottom line?
I am surprised that there aren't more people talking about that drone swarm in the forest! That is incredible and truly horrifying
Well it still looked rather dumb and slow. But once they are advanced, yes.. Very frightening.
@@godmode8687 its just the sheer number. Imagine all of them coming to self destruct around you.
@@godmode8687 even if they're slow, it still would take intelligence to have the drones in formation while still navigating through a forest
@@ovencake523 they vvould be super good on svveeping for recue missions. but of course they are going to use them to kill eachother
exactly, as someone who loves military weapons and who is very very personal about war, I think that it's a horrible idea to take the hands off the trigger, regaurdless even if you take it away from the human being people still will suffer regaurdless theirs always going to be a time when something will go wrong,
Saying drone pilots are too disconnected from reality is like saying artillery forces don't see what they fire on and are too disconnected from the impact of their actions aswell
especially those decing about war are very disconnected from the reality they cause as they aren't the ones dying.
100%> You can argue that guy is in the field though. And does every a chance to be killed themselves (in Ukraine artillery is like being on the frontline the fireback can be so fast). But the actually act of firing and determining if you should fire is the same.
Drones cause a lot of civilian casualties
@@wandiledlamini2591 A lot less than conventual armaments
@@wandiledlamini2591 90% of victims of US drone strikes are civilians. Source: "Drone Papers" leaked by whistleblower Daniel Hale.
I've always found those mini drone swarms viscerally terrifying.
Drone swarms are just for show, the combat effectiveness of a drone is reduce quite a lot if you just keep adding them to a single area. It's a "instead of having 1 slow moving target that you can easily hit once it's locked on, why not have 5?" Kind of case. They may be menacing but they're hardly a bigger threat than a single drone. Autonomous military drones might even have a harder time than a human operator would at distinguishing friendly and hostile drones on the battlefield. After all it's only a matter of time until drone vs drone warfare become a serious topic.
Having a human with the finger on a button for a drone or such thing like that is one thing, but autonomous killing is completely unacceptable to me.
As long as it's unacceptable that we aren't willingly murdering foreign civilians. That's the big issue in the US military.
@Falkane I think that the drone should see out a target autonomously, however the actual pulling of the trigger and reviewing of the footage should always be put in human hands.
@@rockyjohnson9243 Agreed. At least until the drones are capable of accurately differentiating civilian from a combatant.
@@Name5240 They never will, humans can't.
Why is autonomous killing by machines operating according to algorithms and rules written by humans any worse than a human killing other humans while operating according to procedures and rules written by humans? I'm a computer scientist, and I can tell you that the autonomous machines at this point make fewer recognition mistakes than the humans, and the machines never accidentally, or worse intentionally, disregard the rules.
One of his points were to 'take the burden' off the human by using AI input to determine the target. That doesn't feel right to me, as its quite clearly minimising the weight of the situation- ending other lives. It's a very serious matter and human input is necessary to experience the gravity of the situation.
Unfortunately, I'm not satisfied with the way I've been able to articulate by thoughts here.
I think you put it well, I agree. Far too little thought is given to collateral damage by the military.
Bring out the terminator
In a high intensity conflict against a near-peer opponent, I think this is a good thing. Since this would actually save more lives (albeit, lives from your side, at the expense of the enemies', which is what you want, right?). You don't really need any judgement in this case other than identifying it is the enemy, in this case an autonomous weapon that can guide itself or identify its own target would be amazing for your own troops on the ground since they can be more efficient.
Or to put it in a different way, would you risk a platoon of say 25 men with their gear and training to ambush a Russian convoy, maybe losing 2-5 guys....or do you send maybe 4-5 autonomous munitions to achieve the same result?
In a low intensity conflict against an asymmetrical opponent though, it's a different story and a lot more judgement from a human is needed before taking the shot.
same thougths
Excellent presentation. Eye opening and informative
The media sure likes taking off the human factor in transport like planes and automobiles, but they sure hate the logical conclusion that weapons is also part of that pandora's box.
Nice. Clean and quick way to get the enemy without them knowing the end is near
The real value of such drones is the ability to find out what else is in the target area 😍
Drones is so much safer for us civilians than artillery etc. Drones has real-time video. Artillery is just aiming in a general direction. Russia does a lot of it. They also send cruiser/ballistic missiles daily on Ukranian cities with really bad precision.
that is how you lie to yourself.1000 Ukrainian soldiers are dying per day.
@@rodneyagesa1851 What do you mean?
@@rodneyagesa1851 1000? What ass did you pull that out of? :))
@@rodneyagesa1851 false
@@mnd9595 Ukraine Minister of Defence confirms it. That's why Zelensky calls other EU nations cowards for not helping them enough.
Agree with Mr A Guterres: Fully Autonomous Machines are unacceptable - to the moral aspect I will add: anything that has been programmed can be hacked - and more importantly: who will take responsibility for the actions of the rogue drone?
Fully autonomous arms aren’t that different functionally from mines. Some people consider mines immoral but they’re still commonly used
yeah i got a bad feeling about the future of this stuff,people will get carried away and then shits on fire
@@haruruben Yes they are different from mines. A mine does not select a target, it does not activley shoot someone. If you would stay at home and do nothing you will not be killed by a mine, but you may very well be killed by an Autonomous drone that mistakes you mowing your lawn for a soldier.
@@dartharagon9129 So it's only heinous if it kills members of the 1st world living in their suburbs? Mines still kill and maim innocent people living in the 3rd world. Children playing in a field, people on their daily commute to work, families out for a walk. Mines do not discriminate and are certainly not acceptable in comparison with Combat Drones.
Informative. thanks
if you ban "lethal autonomous" systems, does that include mines? if not then where do you draw the distinction? Noting that some mines can even distinguise friend and foe, and some drones can't.
"Are we comfortable with handing life and death decisions to machines " yes you are, if they are not your people...you are
@@MrMichiel1983 of course I am not ok with it. I think drone warfare should be a war crime.
electronic counter measures and electronic counter counter measures are the key its been around for decades
9:56 Got 'em! That's +50 points.
Nice Video! love them.
The poor, the needy, the hungry children are appalled by total waste of resources to weapons of mass destructions. The children need food , medical care, education....etc.
They are asking when all these madness & military
hostilities will end ? And bring a better & kind planet to live & survive ?
What if we did go to war you'd be sitting ducks 🤔
Humans are just naturally aggressive and territorial, it's part of our nature
The real value of such drones is the ability to find out what else is in the target area. Before engaging it's target.
7:45 a fighter pilot with glasses??? That was the one thing that kept me from ever being in the Air Force or Navy! Wtf
Great ending question... we are cruel to each other so much that option to trust machines has more sense as we progress forward. Is that approach safe? Of course not, but if it can prevent brutality and cruelty of human beings than the benefits of trusting machines becomes more and more obvious... once again its proven that source of all evil are still human beings and not robots or machine code.
In this question, AI is a moot point. First of all, there is no intelligence in it, it's just a machine. A landmine once laid down is also autonomous and not very selective about who it will kill. A simple bomb once loosed from a plane also falls where it may, it doesn't question whose head it is. Accuracy for a killer robot is same sort of thing, just because it's driven by software not by luck and random chance doesn't make it meaningfully different. Weapons of war sometimes hit the wrong target, or are in fact used carelessly or even completely without regard for rules of war. Outright war crimes are all too common, such is the nature of war, it's a violent sort of business. Arguing about how long a lanyard should be used to trigger the artillery is semantics.
Yes AI is just a fad term for overindulgent smartphone losers buying the same rebranded garbage VI software. AI doesn't exist, they just changed the definition to fake progress for all you little infantile babies out there to pretend "hurrr durrrr da futurez ish naoo"
I think it still matters. Creating even more layers of separation between our society and the war/violence/killing we propagate around the world is probably a bad direction take. Now more than ever we need integrity and accountability from our military executives and awareness from our citizens- I don't think a autonomous killing drones will help us with any of that.
Mines requires people standing on them. An autonomoous drone is programmed to make an active decision while moving. These are quite different things, because on the mine case, the one responsible for the kill is the person who planted the mine. In the drone case if a civilian is killed, who is responsible? The person who deployed the drone with another target in mind? The programmers of the drone? The dron itself as a decision making agent?
@@jkgambz You are anthropomorphizing a trigger mechanism, a piece of software doesn't make decisions any more than a tripwire does. If you step in a trap that kills you, the precise mechanics hardly matter, dead is dead.
LOL You should look up what "autonomous" means before typing a wall of text. A landmine is not the same as a missile with a computer chip and programmable instructions. Just because they have the potential to kill a friendly doesn't mean they're the same thing. Why does this ridiculous comment have 71 likes?
I bet fully automated AI drones will come into play in the next 5-8 years. Which is scary
Doesn't mean they will just your own prediction
@@rippamcstanky4169 he ain't say he's own prediction
And Some of Automated Heli and Cargo plane will be real in next Decade
Have we learned nothing from the Terminator movies and Skynet???
@@peace4myheart well considering it's a fictional movie series, I'm gonna say no
Great facts
The creator of switchblade speaks about finding targets etc like its nothing more than an everyday game.
Honestly, I don't know if human operators would be any better than a well-made algorithm. Humans are so much more flawed than we think. We're just used to the fact that humans make mistakes, and scared because robots can't just use the excuse of "oops" like a human operator can. Like, why should I trust some random soldier more than this algorithm?
The real question is: will the autonomous drones save enough operators/pilots from trauma and death to justify the number of additional accidental deaths on top of what a human operator would do?
More data and development is needed.
You have a good point there...
This film was created by order of the Russians or the Chinese so that the US would stop development in this field. It worked and Ukraine is forced to fight almost exclusively with its drones.
It's harder to blame an individual when an AI misidentifies a target. You can blame the government/group deploying it, but shared accountability makes it less accountability... and takes away any argument for intentional malice.
That's why I think this will become the norm.
Opens up floodgates on civil liability though. Same issue with cars. While the ai remains an enhanced additin to driver responsibility the creator is insulated. Once the creator or company behind an ai says it drives you, if it kills someone the company is liable.
You know arm dealer is playing legal trickery when they call it “loitering munitions” rather than call it “drone”
@@larrychicco1062 For cars? Amybe. But not for military uses. Who is gonna sue the producer? The enemy? Dont think so.
The ´customer, the own government? If its told there is a low risk it does friendly fire, we dont take any blame for that, im sure the government agrees.
wonderfull...
Those switchblade drones are perfect for an ambush. Hide a few of those launch tubes in the bushes or on building rooftops, get back a few miles and launch when the enemy is in range.
bayraktar tb2 offers perfect balance between lethality and cost. it can mark targets with laser, it can stay on air 24 hours and it can fly under radar (literally) behind the enemy lines.
Türkiye number one 🇹🇷✈🇺🇦
It's NATO technology not turkey
I get that this is an amazing feat of human ingenuity, but that's the only reason one should ever feel proud in talking about these things.
The true cost of a drone is priceless the operator survives whether the Drone does or not
Welcome 2 the Jungle!
What you see is a smoke screen of what is out there
I for one welcome our robot overlords.
switch blades are $6000 vs javelins that are $200,000 and $1.2b of the money sent over was for just javelins.....these switchblade drones are pocket change dust in comparison (yes I know they have different uses but Im comparing them financially, we cant complain about the much much cheaper one when we sent of the other already)
A switchblade cant take out a tank... Switchblades are basically guided mortars.
@@TopShot501st ready what I said do you not see the ( )
@@expiredgamer_ugh so you said nothing, good day...
@@TopShot501st I think alexander is saying that since we already sent a shitton of Javelin missiles, sending Switchblades arent really a big deal costwise.
@@TopShot501st But they can. There are different varients of the switch blade, which are larger and carry larger loads. The largest varient(600) carries a javelin's charge.
Russians have a subwater drone named Poseidon. It is somewhat more expensive than Switchblade, but is 100% effective too.
Very ok !!
This is really scary. That’s not expensive at all for something like that, and they’re somewhat making their own decisions. Idk how I feel about that lol
Looking at cost alone is often pointless. You have to compare the cost to the benefits. For example, will $1,000 of drone costs destroy $50 of enemy assets or $50,000 of enemy assets ?
This cost is not the one measured in gold, but in terms of society. it's more like the "cost of a life"
what you think one artylery shell cost ? and how many of they you need to kill one soldier
This thing is one shoot = one target or more
this great news to save money for armies
for soldiers not so much :)
Agreed. That's why comparatively cheaper MANPADS like the AT4, Javelin, and Stinger missiles are causing massive headaches for Russian armor and aircraft, causing them to build useless cope cages on their tanks, and to fly Russian helicopters dangerously low (or very high to drop inaccurately placed munitions) to avoid detection/destruction.
you kinda missed the point of the video .... the "true" cost here is ehtical and human life.
@@Dynioglowy1986 my friend and I just looked up the cost of artillery shells, and 15 years ago one shell you would cost $250,000, they've never got in the cost of the shells down to like 32,000 each
6:08 - he should’ve really used the words “to record nature” 😂
Powerful
These switchblades seem to be easaly used even for untrained, its like a dream for ground forces a small camera with a tank busting warhead acts like a light grenade launcher but acts as a guided ATGM which hits from above. If used en mass dozens in a fight this would do alooot of damage in a very short time.
Congrats, the units sent to Ukraine already have the russian tankers shitting their pants, and that was only a few hundred of them.
And the best thing is: They are ridiculously cheap.
With the right paperwork you can easily turn donations into high-end armed drones
@@Frontline_view_kaiser yeah, it's nice to see the Red Chinese DJI's being used for things other than spying on the West.
@@Shinzon23 Oh yeah
The Mavic is great to drop rifle grenades and with the Phantom you can even drop self-made shaped charges the size of coke-bottles on vehicles.
@@Frontline_view_kaiser in a true test of irony, a LOT of the homebrew explosive shaped charge designs are ones Al-Qaeda posted online to use against western invaders.... and now the West is using them against the Eastern Invaders.
She claims they neutralized the technology yet footage keeps coming out from drones striking or doing recon missions?
Russians shot down some TB2 , but they are cheap to replace. 2-3million $ for drone replacement. Sometimes S-400/300 missiles are more costly than the drone .
Nice....
1:35 nice
There is no blurred line, no question. Drones allow us to engage an enemy without risking our own. They do that now. There are more than enough people, who can be trained to sit in the comfort and safety of a secure base and engage the enemy without risk. There is absolutely zero need for the machine to make the IFF decision. That can easily, and should only ever, be done by the safe, comfortable, un-risked human being, sitting far away.
Machine makes less mistake, and has higher reliability. Ethics is one thing, facts are facts.
There are plenty of people around to be cashiers and hamburger flippers, yet here we are. AI is here.
@@Fearls1 Yeah, dead innocents vs cold fries, the very epitome of apples to apples.
@@grapesurgeon I’m not talking about accuracy, but human error. People have emotions sadness, anger, empathy which all affects judgement. But machine controlled by algorithm is consistent therefore the result is more foreseeable.
I agree. I think drones are really useful but I will NEVER EVER accept a silicon chip making a life or death decision. There should always be a human on the trigger. Even if humans occasionally make mistakes in target acquisition, I would still prefer them over a silicon chip.
Havacılık endüstrisinde kendi şirketlerimizi görmek gurur verici. Jet motoru, iff, aesa gibi sistemlerde de piyasanın sözü geçen ülkelerinden birisi olmamız dileğiyle...
inşallah kardeşim, çalışıp çabalarsak neden olmasın! 🙏🏻🙌🏻🇹🇷🕊
aesa da zirvedeyiz, 3-4 ülke sadece f16 ya sığacak kadar küçük aesa radarı geliştirebildi, türkiye de bu ülkelerden birisi. Önce akıncılara takılacak ardından f16 larda kullanılacak, savunma sanayimiz için en gurur verici fakat çok bahsedilmeyen konulardan birisi de bu aesa radarlarımız.
türkiye tek başına tb2 için tek bir pervane yapamıyor, her şeyi dışarıdan tedarik ediyorlar. İsrail, Nato ve diğer haydutlar TB2'yi yapıyor. kanatlara türkiye bayrağı koymak sadece bir stratejidir ve Bu strateji Türk halkının çıkarına değildir. 😏
@@hamedknowsbest2663 how are you sure about this info. You dont know anything about the defence industry believe me, I am working in the industry, you can fool others but not me.
@@kutdem6321 what i said was derived from publicly available data, given the context, Tb2 being completely indigenous is a joke. It was made by Turkey+Ukraine+Israel+ many other Nato allies... I'm not saying its not a capable weapon. It has proven itself rightfully so, but making it "a Turkish weapon flagship" was a geopolitical and political play.
What are the checks and balances about drone and A.I in warfare?
300 civilians killed by drone attacks. I have a hard time coping with that fact.
Skynet is becoming a reality
Ayo, They Killer tho!
true cost is ur concscience🔥🔥🔥
All development goes thru all these steps of. Development. Perfectly normal. Only the life and death scenario we always see in war.
Experiencing how Skynet was developed. What a time to be alive.😂
The farmer with irrigation pipes on his truck or a group cutting rice can be seen as a threat & targeted. No 'war crime' there, unless it's the refueler, programmer or the boss' held responsible.
Would it be a war crime if it happens by accident performed by a person? I think not really. War is dirty. Innocent people die.
Soldiers getting depressed in war is not all bad, it makes them careful not to hurt innocent people.
switchblade can make like space x falcon heavy , can use more time and dont destroi drones, its easy need to make like catrige and programing for distance
Great video. We've made progress banning chemical warfare and we need to make another step with fully automating it as well. At the least, we must have some level of accountability, once we've let the AI decide, who is really responsible at all?
This total loss of answerability or rather responsibility, for Humans, is certainly and thoughtlessly ill-considered.
Either way human is responsible, for pulling the trigger or programming the drone/ai properly.
Really? Chemical weapons are banned? Is that why America still uses white phosphorus and depleted uranium?
Well said
@@wybuchowyukomendant Yea people don't really understand UAV, they just think OMG unmanned they must be thinking by themselves! When its the same technology used in RC toy planes for decades. Only auto about UAV is takeoff/landing and auto pilot to way points.
The only reason chemical warfare was successfully banned is because no country ever managed to get it to work all that well. The advantage of chemical weapons simply doesn't make it worth the headache.
This of course ignoring the fact that lots of countries, including the US have still used chemical weapons anyway whenever they've found a particularly good reason for it. Be that agent orange or white phosphorus.
Autonomy in drones is quite simply too useful to ever be banned.
I’m thinking in the future whoever can pump out drones with AI capable of doing everything on their own will control the sky as long as it’s not countered by anti air. You won’t even need to train pilots anymore so whoever can manufacture them faster will have the edge. That will allow you to have huge AI air force much faster than training pilots.
Yea jet human jet fighters are kind of a useless job nowadays. I think they keep them mostly for nostalgia, because unmanned jets can essentially do everything a human piloted one can do, and more, faster, etc. But can you imagine a country deploying like a million tiny drones into enemy territory? There'd literally be nothing you could do
Can't see a Drone beating a F-22 , J-20 or SU-57 in a dog fight.
@@Crashed131963 I don't think you understand. All those jets would perform better and could do more maneuvers if they were autonomous. Humans can only take so much G force
@@matthewviramontes3131 Oh ,Drone fighter jets you mean.
Got it now.
Thought you meant current predator drones fighting fighter jets.
Semiconductors..hahaha.
To all those killed, let death be kinder than man.
7:00 my favourite part :)
Before blaming drones over accuracy concerns, think about the other blind armaments and equipments which are used randomly without any target validation. In a drone strike there certainly exists some sort of due diligence. PTSD in that case should also affect pilots of bomber planes and artillery crews .
Can you image an AI-controlled drone swarm...its a scary thought
Seeing the Chinese drone swarm in a forest makes me think the AA12 fully automatic 12 gauge shotgun now has a use.
We FPV pilots have a promising future. Saw a cheeky Nazgul in the b-roll
When the AI singularity occurs we won’t even notice. The preceding time will be already several chapters deep in the apocalypse.
AI cannot do things better than a human. It can do it more quickly and is never tired tho. So mistaking a civil target for a millitary target will still happen.
Is that a general statement or specifically about making a decision for weaponry. Because AI certainly can do some things better than humans
@@Mr_MikeMikeMike anything regarding decision making and AI can do better than a human.
@@gunnari9254 lmao ai is kinda like a sociopath, it sees what it wants and it goes for it, whereas humans will take the morally correct yet longer path
@@Mr_MikeMikeMike I'm working in the area of AI, I can safely say no algorithm is 100% accurate because we cannot gather enough data on something to predict given there is always outliers, having said that it safe to assume that the decision making will be in the hands of human. I agree that we should have discussion on the ethics of AI especially the one's used in offensive platforms.
@@hiteshdsouza9615 So humans can see %100 of the situation? It is obvious that you are indeed NOT in AI development. Only thing AI needs to do is to be better than humans. It can be better than humans with %2 correct decision rate if humans are %1. The question is not if they are going to be better than humans or not, but when.
Can’t see autonomous killer robots going wrong at all
Sure, let humans make all the decisions. That has worked so very well in the past. After all, humans have never committed friendly-fire mistakes.
At least a human can be held responsible. Algorithms are unimpeachable. Even if they do something wrong, there is no one to answer for their crimes.
We must keep humans in control.
@@tomwallen7271 you can still hold whoever ordered the strike responsible. It's not that hard to understand, irregardless if it's ai controlled or not.
@@Deadassbruhfrfr obviously, that would imply a human has control over this AI, and it is not truly acquiring targets and making the kill decision independently.
However, I would just like us both to step back and appreciate the juxtaposition of the username you chose to represent yourself on UA-cam, and the nature of the conversations you end up having on the platform. I think we can all appreciate the true duality of man
Your argument is flawed because it implies that things can’t get worse but in reality you might look back at your comment and think humans in control wasn’t so bad. Remember the grass isn’t always greener….
@@brainfood8190 Your sarcasm detector is on the blink. The statement is actually a reductio ad absurdum.
“Drone” is the wrong word.
A drone is not controlled by any human at any point. From take off to landing back at base.
These are UAVs. They have human controllers and human brains making the life and death decisions. They do not make the choice on whether or not they deploy lethal ordinance.
A UAV is a tool. No different from an M-16 or AK-74.
then who controlled my dji drones? it controlled itself? you're so confusing.
Can you give un an example (date + place) of full autonomous fire mission ? I think there’s a man behind every drone every fir button
"And what if it falls in the wrong hands" well the wrong hands are making them!
Seems like assymetrical warfare always wins
I was just saying this morning that Skynet, or at least something like it, is inevitable. Because we'll get to a point where the autonomous technology is just right, and we'll have a decision to make about whether we should go just that last little step to make it fully autonomous. And we all know that we'll get to that point and say "yeah, let's do it" and then we're doomed. I really do think it's simply a matter of time before AI takes over.
IMO there will be many "Skynets" developed by various nations with different softwares, protocols, and procedures.
Different nations will develop their own version, which won't be compatible with each other due to various reasons, like to prevent hacking.
I really doubt if these Skynets could ever get sentient and/or go against their creators, but even if they did, we'll simply employ other "Skynets" to fight it. No problem.
In any case, real life "Skynet" won't be a monolithic super AI with full and unrestricted access to all smart devices on Earth, but a crippled AI on an ASIC device, with limited processing power for general purpose task, and no interface to connect to anything that's not part of its main function (again to prevent hacking).
So the real life "Skynet" will need an entire day just to hack single automatic door (e.g. learning how to send and process signals to and from its sensor and motor), years to hack a smartphone, and centuries (if ever) to "hack" the ancient semi-analog nuclear ICBM computers.
We have no ai that's even close to sentient. The term ai is misleading. All we have is some pattern recognition tools that are assembled by humans. These AI's have no clue what they are even pattern detecting, they just answer the question, is this fitting in the pattern I'm programmed to search for. The entire ai scare is only people who don't know what an ai or neural network is. You can build one yourself, it's not so hard and it's not intelligent at all.
the idea of amazon drones being used for war is absolutely hilarious
high level technology
I don't really see a problem with automated drones. Friendly fire has been an inevitable part of modern conflicts. Artillery, for example, can hit over the horizon, so we're essentially shooting blind most of the time, which can do a lot more damage than a drone. Now, if we were giving machines control of truly destructive weapons (e.g., capable of wiping out large numbers of people), then that's a problem. Then again, we're already depending on computer of missiles to not malfunction and hit our own.
What a terrible argument. "We can't avoid friendly fire so we should stop trying to avoid them". I think drones are really useful but I will NEVER EVER accept a silicon chip making a life or death decision. There should always be a human on the trigger. Even if humans occasionally make mistakes in target acquisition, I would still prefer them over a silicon chip.
@@TomCruz54321 I don't say we should stop trying to avoid it. I'm saying that having a human doesn't make a difference, because humans have been making mistakes (like friendly fire) constantly. Having a machine vs a human making the mistake isn't that different. In fact, it's more likely for a machine to become good at selecting right targets than a human since you can make a fix and apply it to all machines vs training every human operator to not make the same mistake.
@@TomCruz54321 "Even if humans occasionally make mistakes in target acquisition, I would still prefer them over a silicon chip."
So you would prefer the worse performing solution that makes more mistakes, is sometimes subject to emotions or other subjective factors that leads them to break the rules designed to prevent those mistakes, and objectively produces worse outcomes.
...What exactly is it your intention to accomplish, again?
Imagine if we used this tech to find lost people or something.
no money in it lol
oh hell nah 💀
Military technology always seeps into the civilian market. You wouldn't have GPS or the Internet without Military R&D.
Why not use it before you loose people. To prevent loosing them. Your own soldiers for example?
@@godmode8687 i think they meant people stuck on natural disasters, environmental accidents or lost hikers/rafters
The concerns discussed here are true... in a vacuum.
In reality, it is not about whether AI can make mistakes, it's about whether it would make more mistake than humans. That changes things significantly, because it makes the bar a LOT lower.
John Aldana looks like that evil boss with a double chin from a Disney+ movie lol
I love how the insider said that the topic is more nuisance, and proceeded to simplify the whole situation about drones causing unintentional harms. Like 300 cases caused by autonomous systems, ok, how about you give us some sense about the number by pointing out the number of human-caused accidents in a year? You can't because that won't work with the narrative you want to construct.
This video is not about answering a question but justifying your perceived opinion that drone is bad.
Insider, you can do better than that.
:000
So is your argument that drone is good or that nuance is good? Because they provided about as much nuance as you can in such a short video
@@Alexander-cg1ey My position is that with all technologies; things can go both ways. And that the best approach moving forward is to steer it the best engineers could.
instead of trying to fearmonger the people into believing that drone technology is almost unwelcome by people. Share a similar vibe when train and plane are first introduced
@@Alexander-cg1ey Well they talked about 400 incidents with autonomous cars, which says absolutely nothing. If they talk about 400 incidents then tell us how many cars, how many hours, and then compare it with incidents in driven cars. But now it's ''400'' and we just leave it there. Talking about how 300 civilians were killed, 300 killed in a war isn't that much.
Drones and loitering munitions are far less probable to cause civilian casualties when compared to conventional artillery or missile systems. They also performed extremely efficiently in Ukraine so far. Claiming that Russia has neutralized the TB2 threat entirely by adapting air defense systems accordingly is wildly inaccurate. Azerbaijan has used not only Israeli-made loitering munitions but also Turkish-made TB2, in fact, according to visually backed sources like @oryxspioenkop majority of the damage was done by TB2 drones. In the entire war, I don't remember a single civilian casualty by drones.
All depends on the user.
@@trowawayacc And user impact is way higher and unpredictable with the artillery and missile systems he says.
TB2s practically do not fly, with the exception of gaps in air defenses. what TB2 and Russian drones did during the entire period of the special operation, the artillery battery will do the same in one week.
do not forget that the price of TB2 is 5,500,000 dollars, and it is knocked down by a rocket for 10,000 - 20,000 dollars. drones are good as reconnaissance, but as shock drones they do not work where there is good air defense.
@@kachala lol TB2 flies at 8 km altitude, what "rocket" with 20k price tag can reach there? Please tell us.
@@loremipsum3147 Pantsir? Tor?
I remember watching this movie. The one with big guy saying I'll be back
i wonder how many arms were last back i nthe day spinning up one of those aircraft propellers manually
Do you think if the enemy had this technology, will no used against you?