• BilSabab@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    10 hours ago

    it is even worse when someone is actively destroying clean water sources. Back when russians blew up the Kakhovka dam - there was a huge crisis because it wrecked the entire ecosystem and disrupted water supply for a couple of months. Before everything got worked out and the new infrastructure was installed - everything was running on makeshift water storages and filtering systems and the likes. So what russians decided to do? Send some drones to blow it up for shits and giggles.

  • Gorilladrums@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    15 hours ago

    The very first “real” water war is going to break out in Central Asia within the next few years. Iran, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Pakistan, and Turkmenistan are ALL having major water scarcity issues, they all rely on water intensive crops and industries to fuel their economies, they’re all trying to ramp up production despite being on the brink, they’ve all had decades of mismanagement, and a lot of their water sources are shared. In other words, these countries are so authoritarian, so corrupt, and their water resources are so horribly mismanaged that things are actually looking really bleak over there. If I was a betting man I would bet that the next major war is going to start there.

  • TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    78
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Orwell was mostly right:

    “If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.”

    He only missed that it would be a robotic foot not a boot.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      23 hours ago

      In “I, Robot” the mega-computers dedicated to optimizing humanity are pivotal in removing said boot, precisely because it generates a ton of waste that benefits only a handful of people.

      I like to think that, no matter how hard dipshits like Elon try, their AI Revolution will ultimately bend us in that direction. In the end, it’ll be the billionaire and trillionaire class who declare war on the machines they financed the creation of.

  • npcknapsack@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    19 hours ago

    I’m sure they’ll be powered by gen AI chatbots, so just tell them it would be helpful if they’d get you the water.

    • BeeegScaaawyCripple@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Our dear friend spankinspinach was ever so trainlike, including his cause of death. May we all also so suplex our way to the pearlish gates, amen.

    • Juice@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      1 day ago

      You can also shine high power lasers in their eyes. Without some mechanism to quickly block sudden brightness (tech which exists as I understand) it will burn out the camera. Battery removal is the last resort shut down procedure so the battery has to be somewhat exposed in case of emergencies. Their joints are also vulnerable, and could be gummed up.

      Signal jamming, drone hacking, there’s so much potential. They scare people, but they are pretty vulnerable.

      There’s nothing about a drone with a gun mounted to it that doesn’t scream “free gun”

        • RedFrank24@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          19 hours ago

          You know why the drones in Ukraine are on super long fibre optic cables? Because it turns out it’s really easy to jam them and the only way you’re actually able to get a clean signal is through a cable. Either these robots are gonna be easy to jam, or you can cut the wires leading back to their handler and they’d just stop working.

        • Juice@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          There are already diy heat shields that can be made for a few dollars and have been proven against microwave emitters. You act like ppl aren’t already fighting drones and high tech weapons.

            • JcbAzPx@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              23 hours ago

              So somehow this tiny little robot has 40 tons of equipment for every possible scenario but is able to hop around like it’s nothing but plastic and wires.

              Sure…

            • Juice@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              I’m not talking about an isolated individual Rambo, I’m talking about well coordinated, disciplined guerrilla warfare.

              I’m not saying the tech isn’t effective, I’m saying it’s vulnerable, and I think that the right tactics could give us an advantage.

              Just the way you seem to think about these things is very silly

      • _lilith@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        if you need to get close hammers or other blunt weapons would be very effective on fragile joints and battery compartments. nice way to disable them after you fry the optics

      • rumba@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        AI AI-powered turret mounted on the top that has machine accuracy, super-human reflexes, and sufficient strength to carry hundreds of lbs of ammo.

        You’d need ambush tactics

        • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          24 hours ago

          You’d need ambush tactics

          Smoke and rockets. At least until supplies run out. Then you get crafty: sticky bombs, fire traps, optical illusions, nets…

          The last one is interesting since I bet they’re not dexterous enough to undo knots, let alone handle being tangled up in something. Once you know how they’re programmed, you hit them outside that envelope.

      • FishFace@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Cool, so as long as you can shoot the inhumanly fast robot with a laser, or close the distance, work out how to remove it’s battery and then do so, or gum up its joints - before it shoots you with a bullet - you’re safe from gun-wielding robots.

        Of course, protective lenses can be added to robots designed for the military or security, so even the safest of those options is unlikely to be at all feasible.

        • Juice@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          19 hours ago

          So I’m not talking about going solo against a fleet of lethal bots, I’m talking about coordinated guerilla tactics that neutralize and permanently disable them. I have a copy of the tech manual for those robot dogs, eh, somewhere on my PC. The point is you wouldn’t figure out how to remove the battery, like the previous person said, you could aim for the battery to disable it, you’d already have knowledge of it.

          The lens protection that I already said exists, still blinds the camera, it just protects the camera from getting burned out. It doesn’t mean its completely ineffective, but it is a way to disable one of its primary sensors. A lot of police bots also have infrared tech, I’m not sure how that works, but its just an engineering problem.

          My point is there are multiple things one could to to temporarily or permanently disable a robot that wouldn’t work on a human.

          I do find of funny that you stress the AI, and that is the main flaw in your argument. You assume that these systems will actually work. A fleet of military robots sold to police doesn’t have to work, it just has to work well enough to trick dumbass bureaucrats that it works. We already know how fucked up and unreliable AI is, and you just assume in your comment that the AI works as intended. AI is a buzzword scam meant to fleece the morons in control of public funding.

          If you think ai police bots are anything but a scam that couldn’t be overcome through human ingenuity, I have some waterfront property I’d love for you to take a look at

          • Postmortal_Pop@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            21 hours ago

            Frankly there’s really a lot of over thinking going on in this thread. A good toss with a molotov still solves 90% of problems.

          • FishFace@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            21 hours ago

            The lens protection that I already said exists, still blinds the camera, it just protects the camera from getting burned out. It doesn’t mean its completely ineffective, but it is a way to disable one of its primary sensors. A lot of police bots also have infrared tech, I’m not sure how that works, but its just an engineering problem.

            All the robot then has to do is move quickly and you won’t be able to keep the laser aimed at it precisely. Extra sensors would enable it to shoot at sources of light triggering this protective mechanism, and extra cameras would make it impractical to disable all of them.

            I do find of funny that you stress the AI

            I didn’t mention AI.

            We already know how fucked up and unreliable AI is

            But since you mentioned it, computers are good enough at mapping the environment and detecting people in it for Waymo to be doing very well, meaning that robots capable of doing this kind of thing are probably already possible and held back by militaries wanting a human in the loop.

            We’re imagining a dystopian future here, so it’s not like the robots need to err on the side of caution - they can just shoot anything that seems like a threat.

            but its just an engineering problem.

            What does this even mean in this context? The situation we’re imagining is not where you have a single problem to overcome, you design a solution, then implement it, then you’re done. It’s more like an arms race. If you engineer a solution to one problem, the next iteration of the robots will make it less effective.

            The original image is a joke, because the developments in legged robots is not really what’s important here; wheeled or tracked or flying robots don’t have to solve that complicated problem and can guard the drinking water easily, too.

            • Juice@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              20 hours ago

              Idk I lost the plot at some point I just started robot posting in the middle of Walmart. Pretty silly.

              For the flying drones, motors that could carry anything larger than a few kilos are like crazy expensive. So spraying or shooting something that was sticky, hard setting, or corrosive could be useful.

              You could also do signal jamming, this tech already exists.

              You’re not fighting the bots you’re fighting whoever sends them. So anything that disables I argue would always be possible and maybe even trivial

  • Evil_Shrubbery@thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    1 day ago

    Soon.

    Also not for clean water (that’s the water wars several years later, a global civil war between megacorps/“gov” and the people), but for water credits and interests on drinking-water-loans you were forced to get to survive.