Quote Originally Posted by Greyblades View Post
If you can stick that on a robotic tank you can stick it on a manned one, plus I dont think it can neutralize a heavy artillery shell, a carpet bombing, let alone a nuke.

My point was that robots arent inheirantly an invincible threat; they're still going to be about as vulnerable as anything else in the armies they serve.
Now you're moving the goalposts. You said we can't stop really fast kinetic penetrators and I showed you that we can. Artillery shells are different and there are systems which can stop them, but those are different systems entirely.
And yes, you can tick it onto a manned tank but that says nothing about whether or not it can defend robots.
Carpet bombings and nukes are completely different issues. Would you nuke London to stop the five killer robots wreaking havoc in the city?

My point was that robots are easier to defend because they do not need the room to comfort humans, they can be designed without huge interior spaces and without taking into account ergonomical and work safety factors, that IS a huge advantage.

Quote Originally Posted by Brenus View Post
Plus problem of software. How IA will identify targets: wearing a uniform? What about civilian having guns? And I think that is why for the moment we will stick to armored mules. Armed Armored Mule will be the equivalent of drone, with less visibility and much more vulnerability.
Derp, way to miss the point of the letter, which is about the question whether we should try to develop AIs which can do just that. The status quo is not relevant, it's about whether we should develop all that in the first place. Noone said current AIs are sufficient to do that.