this post was submitted on 25 Jan 2024
284 points (98.3% liked)

Technology

60021 readers
3299 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Former CEO of Google has been quietly working on a military startup for “suicide” attack drones.::The former Google CEO has been quietly working on a military startup called White Stork with plans to design “kamikaze” attack drones.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] breakingcups 126 points 11 months ago (9 children)

Imagine having an obscene amount of money for the rest of your life, and the thing you decide to do is to invent more devices and methods to kill people.

[–] drmoose 66 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Because they're not good people.

I think we try to analyze stuff and always give benefit of doubt because life's weird but some people are just bad - Occam's razor and everything.

I recently watched a great video on how drug dealers who deal Tranq justify selling dangerous drugs (by Channel 5 on yt) and the host had a great monolog on how many of these people create these fake realities to justify that "their just a cog in the machine" and have no choice and obviously this is a spectrum of sorts. But this mega rich cunt has all of the choices. Literally. So, it's evil. No excuse.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Ghostalmedia 85 points 11 months ago (18 children)

Remember, Eric Schmidt took Google public with the famous “Don’t be Evil” manifesto.

Now he makes murder bots.

[–] random_character_a 18 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

There are company lines/slogans and then there are company action.

First one comes from PR and second is dictated by cold hard cash. Guess which one bends if there is a conflict?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago

Don't be evil to shareholders

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] hoshi711 38 points 11 months ago (4 children)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 11 months ago

Yeah. That’s exactly what a cruise missile is and has been for decades.

[–] flop_leash_973 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Yes, but ones that his company makes and he gets to profit from. It is the classic "tech bro" play. Come to market with some overly complex solution to a problem that has been solved to most peoples satisfaction for decades, claim you are disrupting a stale market that is not meeting the needs of the consumer, ignore any and all existing rules and regulations so you can undercut the existing competition, then bitch when those rules and regulations catch up after you have driven out the existing competition and made obscene profits.

[–] agitatedpotato 3 points 11 months ago

Tech bros are simply middlemen in search of profitable problems that don't exist.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Mango 13 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Slaughterbots are happening. They're probably already a thing.

https://youtu.be/O-2tpwW0kmU?si=In7fuf934_OMCtW9

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Ummm....you not been looking at what's happening in Ukraine? There may not be AI involved (not yet anyway), but UAV munitions are now the way of combat now.

I pity the foot soldiers even more now. War is hell. War with drones strapped with high explosives chasing you down is hell on another level.

[–] Mango 3 points 11 months ago

I've watched dozens of hours of drone footage on Ukraine. That is not what this is. The implications are nowhere near as far reaching.

The simple fact that very few people involved in the production and implementation of slaughterbots need to know what they actually are is terrifying.

If you think police profiling is bad, wait until it's AI profiling based on the prejudice of a few ultra wealthy people.

We don't have any kind of counter measure against these.

[–] BackOnMyBS 3 points 11 months ago

oh my, that's troubling.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://piped.video/O-2tpwW0kmU?si=In7fuf934_OMCtW9

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

[–] Chocrates 8 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Don't these already exist? Ukraine has been using suicide drones to destroy tanks and other equipment for a couple years now.

Edit: I remember an anecdote as well that ISIS was hand building suicide drones as well whenever the hell that was.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 11 months ago

The headline is kinda burying the lede. You're absolutely right that "kamikaze drones" already exist. Others have rather glibly pointed out that cruise missiles that have existed for decades are essentially this, and more recently there have been a great many "loitering munitions" drones which are what this startup is talking about.

The thing that seems to be novel here is that they are intending to make them fully automated, with AI-driven target acquisition, and capable of operating in a zero-comms environment. Currently drones generally still need a human at the controls.

The idea of what amounts to the equivalent of Tesla's "Full Self Driving" tech being in charge of deciding who lives and dies and what should be reduced to a smouldering crater is, it has to be said, faintly unnerving.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 11 months ago

Manhacks are next

[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago (4 children)

I think something cooler would be a fleet of micro-drones that seek out and destroy other drones. Since it doesn't need to have a transceiver itself, seeking out anything broadcasting from above it at ~2.4ghz would be a challenge, but not impossible.

They don't even need to have explosives. Just speed and a good collision path. If it tracks someone's cell phone that could be awkward, but not deadly.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That’s an interesting thought. At first I was wondering what would distinguish them from standard anti-aircraft systems, and then it clicked.

They’d have to be fast - at least with the ability to put on a burst of speed significantly higher than that of the target drone. Making it have an explosive increases the damage and potentially area of effect, but if you think about it like the kinetic kill vehicles designed to take out ICBMs, I think you can just whack the target drone hard enough to knock it out while potentially increasing speed, decreasing weight, and decreasing costs.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

If not speed, just having something to entangle a prop would work too. It's not that I have anything against explosives, it's just that they are heavy and it's just another mechanical bit that can malfunction. (However, a device that is functionally equivalent to a shotgun shell isn't that heavy and doesn't need complex triggering.)

Also, what I was thinking of would only really work against drones that drop munitions or against drones that are used for recon. You did get me thinking about suicide drones again though... Once a suicide drone starts their kill run, its too late and it's hard to hit.

Since the war in Ukraine started, I have been thinking a ton about small anti-drone systems for grunts. They would need to be compact enough to carry in a pocket and be durable enough to survive trench warfare life and at least be functional 99% of the time. Manufacturing at scale would solve some cost issues, but not completely. These conditions also hamper the capabilities of such a drone, a lot.

Side thought- If a shotgun-type concept is used, there is also a novel shell design that would be perfect:

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I like the bola-shot shotgun shell. I was thinking of how to eliminate the need for super precise targeting, to keep unit cost and complexity at a minimum.

How about a stringy polymer like Silly String but serious. Formulate it to be gummy and stronger and use a tiny charge to eject it through orifices in all directions. It would gum up props and cause the target to drop out of the sky. You’d only need a drone complex enough to get within a couple of feet of the target in any direction.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

Yep. Super simple stuff. All you really need to do is disable one propeller and it's game over. No lasers, no explosives. All you need is something that functions as a bit of string, TBH. The drones that use more than 4 propellers may need a little more work, but it's the same concept.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I find ground-based systems more effective as a defensive measure, tho. No limit on weight, no added energy consumption just to be ready to react. I think germans showcased some autocannon like that. It's easier to spot and destroy, but also easier to maintain a drone-less perimeter.

On the other hand, flying antidrone fleet can be an offensive weapon. Everyone watches the front from the sky nowadays, so quickly pulling their eyes off before pushing forward can be a lifesaver.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

That's Gepard, but there are also laser based weapons and loads and loads of EW (mostly jammers)

[–] Mango 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

What stops your fleet from destroying it's own?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

They wouldn't need any kind of radio themselves.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] afraid_of_zombies 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Interesting. What about helicopters and what not?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

As in, radio interference from helicopters?

Well, the intention is a last-resort defense. There have been hundreds of videos where soldiers on the ground see drones way in advance. (Not kamikaze drones, but recon/grenade droppers.) You open box, point mini-drone in the general direction of the bad drone that is tracking you and press a button. The time window would be very short.

In theory, only a small antenna pair on the mini-drone is needed to approximate the position of a Mavic if it's already pointed in that direction. I think even an ESP32 might be able to do the math fast enough, but I dunno.

If you mean to use a swarm of drones to attack a helicopter, I haven't thought about that.

[–] Bocky 5 points 11 months ago
[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago

Swift Beat Holdings...

Because Swift Boat Holdings might be too on the mark.

[–] OutrageousUmpire 2 points 11 months ago

Terminator, you’re needed…

[–] TheDeepState 1 points 11 months ago

Get them to Ukraine fast.

load more comments
view more: next ›