$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 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.
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
@@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
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.
@@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
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.
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
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.
@@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.
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 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.
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
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.
@@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...🤨
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
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,
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
@@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.
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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)
@@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.
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.
The Genie is out of the bottle so to speak. Machines will do much of the fighting in future militaries so a technologically advanced civilization must take advantage of that technology to stay ahead of one's adversaries.
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
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 .
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.
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.
@@stereomachine 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.
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 RUclips, 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….
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
@@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
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.
@@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.
More worrying is that it's cruel men giving orders to the machines. Autocratic states will be the first to employ lethal autonomous weapons, indiscriminately.
As a Ukrainian, I don't see problems in a drone killing all occupants in military uniform beyond a front line. The Switchblade-300 is barely useful against enemies in a body armor (and has a weak radio-jamming resistance), the Switchblade-600 is much better - it can destroy vehicles, at least. In fact, RF is calling for fully autonomous killing drones because they extensively use radio-jamming tools. Unfortunately, we don't have enough neither drones, nor planes, nor artillery, nor tanks to liberate our people fast. Only a third of weapons needed, other is fueled with our blood. putinists are saying "stop war", which would be *a non-defeat pause for RF* to gather forces to strike again. We are willing to win this defensive war.
Keep fighting the good fight. I wanted to join your international fighters helping you but I suffer from epilepsy. So sadly I can’t fight beside such brave people.
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.
“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.
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
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
@@troy4298 Even a single nail in a tyre can disable a vehicle costing 100 k€. This does not mean that a nail is well worth a few thousand dollars! A Switchblade drone flying for 10 minutes or so, cannot go any farther than 10 km from the launch point, and it only carries a small explosive charge barely enough to kill a person with a direct it. A salvo of mortar fire is much more devastating, and also cost effective! And also much more reliable being 100 years old low technology. A Switchblade is not really a drone, it is more like a flying grenade. I do not even think it is capable of maneuvering like a plane (where are the ailerons and elevator?).
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 .
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.
@@One.Zero.One101 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.
@@One.Zero.One101 "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?
Dear Wahid Nawabi, the Sovjet army in Afghanistan consisted of soldiers from the Ukrainian SSR. Also, the Ukrainian army was part of the NATO-forces in Afghanistan. Anyway, a guy who experienced war and dead as a kid should donate his life for more than war and death or should seek professional help...
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.
@@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.
I think the final statement is kinda misleading? if thats the word. Yes machines and ai can make mistakes, but so do people. Ai can make mistakes, misidentify a stick for a gun through cloud for example. But human eyes are just as capable of making the same mistake. I think that, just as with autonomous cars, the question isnt if cant be right 100% of the time it should be banned, but is it better than a human. As the tech develops, ai will get better and better at identifying the right target. A point will come that ai is so good that it will be irresponsible not to use them not only because they have better target id but also cos they reduce risk to human soldiers.
@@boiwvlf thats true. But a government still programmed and deployed a drone so rather then putting someone on a stand for warcrimes you take it up with the government. I actually think this is another point in AIs favour, you dont get psychopath machines like you do people. robots dont rape children. Unlike humans.
"'mistake stick for gun". They are still fine tuning the threat profile algorithm. Notice the switch blade target @ 2:00 "kei truck" . Jihadi/terrorist have used Kei truck with steel pipes as improvised multi-launch mortar systems.
Well the problem is Russia is probably slowing down because they didn't expect this much support from other countries and right now they are just waiting for them to exhaust the resources. Just like how china is just waiting to invade Taiwan when resistance from other countries would decrease. But let's hope that is not the case
@@anzarm.a8547 Yep, looks like Russia going to drain Ukraine and EU into submission, idk what Ukraine and Europe going to do in winter with no heating, hot water and power bills sky high, people already have hard time buying wood lol
I don't care how good the tech is. Nobody will convince me that automating lethal force is a good idea. There should ALWAYS be a human making that judgment call & they should be held responsible if they get it wrong. Can't hold a machine accountable.
In history first time drones won the wars. At Karabakh, Ethiopia and Libya, Turkiye's cheap and effective TB2 drones made a new history. Even at Ukraine war field massive Russian army stopped for months by those little boys. Game has been completely changed. A new era a new world...
All I see is a way to make wars cheaper(which would ensure even small or poorer nations can protect themselves), strikes more precise (which means less civilian deaths, despite what this video tries to sell) as the alternative is carpet bombing the city or artillery strikes and to need less people to actually be fighting.
![ARGENTINA vs. PERÚ [1-0] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 12](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/xtI25ENDDSY/mqdefault.jpg)
![Jack Harlow - Hello Miss Johnson [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Q86_nlRoIGw/mqdefault.jpg)
$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🤷♂️🤧😂
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
"What happens, when the enemy has the keys" We're in Black Ops 2 times, even has the Hunter-Killer drone
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,
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.
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?
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.
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
Nice. Clean and quick way to get the enemy without them knowing the end is near
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.
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.
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
9:56 Got 'em! That's +50 points.
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.
"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.
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.
Türkiye number one 🇹🇷✈🇺🇦
It's NATO technology not turkey
The creator of switchblade speaks about finding targets etc like its nothing more than an everyday game.
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.
Excellent presentation. Eye opening and informative
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.
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.
Nice Video! love them.
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
The real value of such drones is the ability to find out what else is in the target area. Before engaging it's target.
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.
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.
Informative. thanks
The Genie is out of the bottle so to speak. Machines will do much of the fighting in future militaries so a technologically advanced civilization must take advantage of that technology to stay ahead of one's adversaries.
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
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???
@j Considering it's fiction based on rules of physics and human society, it may come true one day, though I hope it doesn't.
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 .
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.
Russians have a subwater drone named Poseidon. It is somewhat more expensive than Switchblade, but is 100% effective too.
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.
@@stereomachine 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.
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 RUclips, 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.
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.
wonderfull...
Ukraine is full of bold and smart people!
I for one welcome our robot overlords.
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.
More worrying is that it's cruel men giving orders to the machines. Autocratic states will be the first to employ lethal autonomous weapons, indiscriminately.
"And what if it falls in the wrong hands" well the wrong hands are making them!
Great facts
As a Ukrainian, I don't see problems in a drone killing all occupants in military uniform beyond a front line.
The Switchblade-300 is barely useful against enemies in a body armor (and has a weak radio-jamming resistance), the Switchblade-600 is much better - it can destroy vehicles, at least.
In fact, RF is calling for fully autonomous killing drones because they extensively use radio-jamming tools.
Unfortunately, we don't have enough neither drones, nor planes, nor artillery, nor tanks to liberate our people fast.
Only a third of weapons needed, other is fueled with our blood.
putinists are saying "stop war", which would be *a non-defeat pause for RF* to gather forces to strike again.
We are willing to win this defensive war.
U gonna pay kokhol
Keep fighting the good fight. I wanted to join your international fighters helping you but I suffer from epilepsy. So sadly I can’t fight beside such brave people.
@@ultrajd ye jjust write in twitter your shit posts. You help Nazi Ukrainian win
не победите)
у вас в Киеве улица бендеры.
ваша судьба решена. дело времени
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.
Europe declared TB2 as HERO at Ukrain, but declared as Killer in Karabakh. That is HYPOCRISY of Europe.
Maalesef oyle aga
Well because thats the truth??
please stop all the war in the world
”Hey that’s the drone from wart hunder”
Experiencing how Skynet was developed. What a time to be alive.😂
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
“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.
There will be fully autonomous drones, so why discuss if we should , when we should discuss how to do it.
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
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.
Can you image an AI-controlled drone swarm...its a scary thought
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.
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.
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.
Ayo, They Killer tho!
This drone was shoot down by Russian today not by missile but by farting into it😂😂
it crashed into it lmao didnt just dump fuel
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 will be honest, this technology is awesome. And yes I don't care for what purposes it is used and what accidents it may cause. it is just cool
the industrial revolution and its consequences
6000 for a single use 😳. I should keep playing with planes if I would have known the profit are amazing in the long run
6000 dollars disabling equipments, weapons, or manpower that could easily be worth hundreds of thousands. its a bargain
That is extremely inexpensive
Javelin cost is about $200,000
destroyed RF tank costs about $3,000,000
Not to mention that the average profit on defense contracts is 10-15%. Not amazing.
@@troy4298 Even a single nail in a tyre can disable a vehicle costing 100 k€. This does not mean that a nail is well worth a few thousand dollars!
A Switchblade drone flying for 10 minutes or so, cannot go any farther than 10 km from the launch point, and it only carries a small explosive charge barely enough to kill a person with a direct it.
A salvo of mortar fire is much more devastating, and also cost effective! And also much more reliable being 100 years old low technology.
A Switchblade is not really a drone, it is more like a flying grenade. I do not even think it is capable of maneuvering like a plane (where are the ailerons and elevator?).
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 .
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.
@@One.Zero.One101 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.
@@One.Zero.One101 "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?
Seeing the Chinese drone swarm in a forest makes me think the AA12 fully automatic 12 gauge shotgun now has a use.
The cost is our conscience.
Do you think if the enemy had this technology, will no used against you?
Dear Wahid Nawabi, the Sovjet army in Afghanistan consisted of soldiers from the Ukrainian SSR. Also, the Ukrainian army was part of the NATO-forces in Afghanistan. Anyway, a guy who experienced war and dead as a kid should donate his life for more than war and death or should seek professional help...
How does one learn the horrors of war without experiencing it? No machine learning algorithm will learn to avoid war in the first place.
Humans have never once learned to collectively avoid war anyway, no matter what horrors wars ever caused, so I don't see the difference.
We FPV pilots have a promising future. Saw a cheeky Nazgul in the b-roll
What are the checks and balances about drone and A.I in warfare?
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.
Haven't these people watched any of the terminator movies??
Yes that's literally what they are movies this is real life
So if sharknado is a movie sharks can be in tornados OMG WE SHOULD BE SO WORRIED!!!!!
I think the final statement is kinda misleading? if thats the word. Yes machines and ai can make mistakes, but so do people. Ai can make mistakes, misidentify a stick for a gun through cloud for example. But human eyes are just as capable of making the same mistake. I think that, just as with autonomous cars, the question isnt if cant be right 100% of the time it should be banned, but is it better than a human.
As the tech develops, ai will get better and better at identifying the right target. A point will come that ai is so good that it will be irresponsible not to use them not only because they have better target id but also cos they reduce risk to human soldiers.
Yes but you can hold a person responsible for their decisions, not a machine
@@boiwvlf thats true. But a government still programmed and deployed a drone so rather then putting someone on a stand for warcrimes you take it up with the government.
I actually think this is another point in AIs favour, you dont get psychopath machines like you do people. robots dont rape children. Unlike humans.
"'mistake stick for gun". They are still fine tuning the threat profile algorithm. Notice the switch blade target @ 2:00 "kei truck" . Jihadi/terrorist have used Kei truck with steel pipes as improvised multi-launch mortar systems.
@@ducatipaso1386 I was just using that for an example. the point is that autonomous drones aren't so much of a problem as badly programmed drones
They had somthing like this in black ops 2.
Very ok !!
The Ukraine war has shown how smart thinking and resistance can give even a small underpowered country a chance to fight an enemy the size of Russia.
You mean that Vietnam, Afghanistan didn’t teach you shit before Ukraine ?
Well the problem is Russia is probably slowing down because they didn't expect this much support from other countries and right now they are just waiting for them to exhaust the resources. Just like how china is just waiting to invade Taiwan when resistance from other countries would decrease. But let's hope that is not the case
@@anzarm.a8547 Yep, looks like Russia going to drain Ukraine and EU into submission, idk what Ukraine and Europe going to do in winter with no heating, hot water and power bills sky high, people already have hard time buying wood lol
“War”
their country has turned into rumble what are you talking about
I wouldn't be surprised if they name the military AI system as SkyNet.
A system just like that with that name already exists - among other similar systems.
Too many negative connections about this
Just to correct you, it was Turkish drones used in Azerbaijan not israeli
azerbaijan used drones from both countries
Soldiers getting depressed in war is not all bad, it makes them careful not to hurt innocent people.
Nice....
I don't care how good the tech is. Nobody will convince me that automating lethal force is a good idea. There should ALWAYS be a human making that judgment call & they should be held responsible if they get it wrong. Can't hold a machine accountable.
In history first time drones won the wars.
At Karabakh, Ethiopia and Libya, Turkiye's cheap and effective TB2 drones made a new history. Even at Ukraine war field massive Russian army stopped for months by those little boys.
Game has been completely changed.
A new era a new world...
All I see is a way to make wars cheaper(which would ensure even small or poorer nations can protect themselves), strikes more precise (which means less civilian deaths, despite what this video tries to sell) as the alternative is carpet bombing the city or artillery strikes and to need less people to actually be fighting.
we can blame the AI now what a relief
All development goes thru all these steps of. Development. Perfectly normal. Only the life and death scenario we always see in war.