Humanitarian warfare: Autonomous robot assassins more ethical than humans

(4 pm. – promoted by ek hornbeck)

Humanitarian warfare.  Conducted not by stupid, lazy humans, but by indefatigable professor drones, wherein any old pile of programmable junk becomes a universal Töten machine.  Because piles of robot junk are more ethical than humans.  Because they are rules-based logic devices merely programmed by unruly humans.  Robots do not metaphorically “flip-flop” their ruling creed.  Without an extra logic gate, block of programming, or “fat-fingered” meltdown that inexplicably passed the compilation test.  We could bypass humans and have the robots program themselves, with the “thou shalt not hurt humans” proviso, modified to exclude the humans we want to kill.  Never to be confused with the humans we don’t want to kill.  Unless they happen to be double-agents.  

Let me suggest that a state of confusion reigns concerning warfare, technology, humanitarian impulses (as literal flip-flop switches), and ethics.

Hello, World!  I am your new emotions-based, fully-embodied killer app designed to avoid unnecessary tit-for-tat death spirals, meaning I sure as fuck didn’t start it.

I mean, if autonomous assassin robots are not godzwounds-a-flopically compounding the problem of human ethics, I will vote affirmatively for the newly-shed, post-debate exoskeleton of the Willard Mechanism AND the fur ball-coughing incumbent.


  1. Compound F

    the broken wall, and Agamemnbot dead…

  2. Compound F

    against WMD.  the prez coughs another fur ball and assassinates robotically, like a reg’lur Norbert Weiner without inhibitory feedback from libruls.

Leave a Reply