12 – we shouldn’t be afraid of ideas.. whether they end up good or bad.. people that want to do bad things already know about it.. it’s best that we think through scenarios
our biggest defense – trusting that people are good
17:34 – we think these things are so far out, but they aren’t – decisions are being made about them today.. so it’s best to pull the idea out into the open so everyone can be thinking about the ramifications, et al
22 – when asked how do you regulate that.. biggest defense is that most people want civilization to work
26 min – create an immune system.. where humans can see these drones coming – handling it until humans need to get involved
31 – we pay every month for our tracking device
35 – constant change – perpetual beta – as prevention of being gamed
38 – addressing the question of flattening all the tires.. non-lethal – Daniel – if easy – then will go on very often.. non-lethal are completely benine – if we’re going to have constant low intensity war – let’s not completely alter our society to abolish that completely rare occurence
43:47 – i would hate to think that people have to put a chill on inquiry
51 – energy as currency – you know if it’s there because you’re using it.. money is 1’s and 0’s .. based on trust
53 – energy available for work.. rather than burning something up to represent it – bitcoin
53 – joi – bitcoin using scarcity as value
science fiction is a place you can think through these scenarios
in daemon – currency based on energy – truly current – there or not
currency that is backed with something that actually has value – who defines value..?
As a novelist, Daniel Suarez spins dystopian tales of the future. But on the TEDGlobal stage, he talks us through a real-life scenario we all need to know more about: the rise of autonomous robotic weapons of war. Advanced drones, automated weapons and AI-powered intelligence-gathering tools, he suggests, could take the decision to make war out of the hands of humans.
taking the humanity out of war?
is there humanity in war?
mattered less who you brought to the battle field, and more – how many
the tools we use to resolve conflict, shape our social landscape
autonomous robotic weapons are such a tool
by requiring very few people to go to war, they risk re-centralizing power into very few hands, possibly reversing a 5 century trend toward democracy
knowing this we can take decisive steps to preserve democratic institutions, to do what humans do best – adapt
once you release drones – 3 things driving decisions away from humans and onto weapons:
- deloush of video – 2004: 71 hrs of video surviellance for analysis, 2011: 300,000 hrs, outstriping human ability to view it all.. and going up.. very soon drones will tell humans what to look at
- electromagnetic jamming – severing connection between drone and operator
- plausible deniability – very difficult to say – who sent that weapon – anonymous war – could shift balance away from defense and toward offense
citizens of high tech society – more vulnerable to robotic weapons – because of data – data powers high tech societies, a wealth of real time data – we are more visible to machines than any people in history – and this perfectly suits the targeting needs of autonomous weapons
popular movements advocating for change – could be detected early – and their leaders eliminated before their ideas achieve critical mass, and ideas achieving critical mass is what political activism/popular govern is all about, anonymous lethal weapons could make lethal action an easy choice for all sorts of competing interests, and this would put a chill on free speech and popular political action, the very heart of democracy. and this is why we need an international treaty on robotic weapons, in particular, a global ban on the employment and development of killer robots. we already have international treaties on nuclear and biological weapons – and these have largely worked… but robotic weapons might be every bit as dangerous – because they will almost certainly be used and they would also be corrosive toward democratic institutions
in nov 2012 – us dept of defense issued a directive that required – human being present in all lethal decisions… this temporarily effectively banned autonomous robotic weapons – but that needs to be permanent
i think the secret will be transparency, no robot should have the expectation of privacy in a public place…
this is more of an immune system than a weapon system
let’s not succumb to the temptation to automate war
let’s make sure killer robots remain fiction..
i thought Daniel said something (in ted or at mit) along the lines of – if we allow/offer tools where people can create for good rather than destruction.. ? that’s what will happen..
trying to find it
found it.. it was Neil Gershenfeld that said it:
pentagon trying to improve defense via a better weapon to win a war – rather tech that gives people something else to do, .. the generals got that.. but not clear what office in the pentagon is the office of preventive technology