I'm waiting for a time when being a criminal or a terrorist is decided based purely on what you do, and not on whether some unidentifiable people pushed a button on some machine or made a circle on unsigned paper and thrown it into a box.
Until then, this distinction ("until criminals and terrorists") doesn't really mean anything, when state actors regularly act indistinguishably from criminals and terrorists.
Bingo! In the US at least, it's the "bad actors" responsibility to keep up with the State in a technological arms race when the State continually pushes closer to "Precogs" as a means of law enforcement.
I wouldn't worry about the "AI" aspect and cheaply mass-produced aspect of that fictional short film. At least not for a couple more years given how terrible and expensive the existing consumer "follow me" drones are (most of which are not computer vision based). Especially at the size depicted, it can't possibly fly for more than a couple minutes if it also needs to process a video feed.
Time to dig up and repeat some old comments of mine...
I'm 100% fine with these automated killing-machines, and with the implications. (Heck, I'd be more than happy to help develop them, if I had the appropriate skillset.) Because our military's allegiance is to the Constitution not to any single executive administration; because the military have far more resources to purchase bots or counterbots than the police do; and because only an idiot would actually have that tech and yet fail to also have, at minimum, an equally-maneuverable ablative countermeasure drone.
(I should clarify here, that this also depends on that I think that it will indeed be our military who gets them first, not some other nation. ... Unless all of this overly-pacifistic discussion somehow convinces enough of the right people that the U.S. should abandon such research, which is why it's important that this video not be heeded. If and only if some other nation perfects the tech first, then the video's intended sentiment gains merit; that is why we must push forward, Damn The Torpedoes(TM).)
This is because, as usual, the devil is in the details. These are drones, not nukes. Nukes have effects for miles away and are so powerful that a nuclear shaped-charge is impossible; but suicide-drones have to fly directly to their target and reach it intact.
So the same amount of shaped-explosive that can crack a skull, can neutralize one of these drones. As such, the braindead-simple countermeasure is to retarget your own supply of these same drones, at the stolen drones. At worst, your IFF radios might add a negligible amount of mass ... but that won't matter for long, because once the enemy knows you're deploying counterdrones, they'll need their own IFF radios (or at least IFF radio receivers) in order to try to avoid your counterdrones.
(Or the enemy could add armor to their drones, but that will make them massive/unmaneuverable enough that you can increase your counterdrones' explosive payload to penetrate their armor, while still being able to intercept them.)
That is why having slaughterbots and not any countermeasures, is the realm of abject idiocy.
If you're looking for historical analogy, try military aviation in general. During the two World Wars, bomber planes would have been game-changing ... if not that there were fighters, too. A slaughterbot is a bomber; a slaughterbot that seeks the enemy's slaughterbots is a fighter.
(I should also point out that, like the Flying Fortress, this tech won't have a limitless lifespan: once lasers are weaponized or railguns are miniaturized, air defense against macroscopic subsonic objects will become almost trivial. Just like supersonic aircraft with rotary autocannons and laser-guided missiles make a mockery of the Flying Fortress.)
so..i'll be scrolling through my feed and ill see my friend post what appears to be a video ad. I'm smart enough to know its just a facebook ad, but alot of people will be tricked and actually think their friend is endorsing a product.
10c is more expensive than local phone calls are in alot of countries. Not a bad idea though, could make alot of spamming unviable even with a small amount like 1c. What about if you "like" something, a portion of the fee goes to the original poster?
"What about if you "like" something, a portion of the fee goes to the original poster?"
Maybe if the likes only got you store credit up to what you've put in but never for profit? If profit from likes was possible, we'd end up with tons of posts karma whores go for.
Spam is exactly why we turned on the 10¢ to post. Cleaned up the spam pretty well :)
We will allow subcommunities soon which will allow moderators to pick the cost to post. Low-income countries can use a very low value denominated in their local currency appropriate for those users.
Apparently the GC is compiled otherwise you have to manage memory somehow manually...
>> Linking in the runtime adds up to 14kb to a module, but the optimizer is able to eliminate unused runtime code. Once WebAssembly exposes the garbage collector natively, there'll be other options as well.
