What's wrong with wanting a “human in the loop”?
The article presents two sides - one end advocates humans taking an active role in the loop, like confirming a drone&#x27;s target classification and authorising it to act lethally. The other side is where the human&#x27;s role is to shape the operating envelope to what they think will have parameters appropriate for the ethics of the situation.<p>The examples of the systems seems completely out of whack though.<p>The active participant advocates are clearly taking about things like air to ground hunter killer missions on ambiguous targets. For example, a civilian vehicle converted to technical vs a plumber hauling some piping. A farmer with a weed killer in a ditch by the road vs an insurgent constructing an ambush. These are clearly beyond the realm of what the other side is talking about - easily identifying shit like russian airforce craft with no friendly transponders and armed active radar payloads under its wings.<p>I don&#x27;t understand the conversation that is trying to take place. Clearly they are too different to even consider. Is the conversation supposed to be hypothetical enough that we can pretend we can act in the first case, as we can in the second? Then the conversation seems pointless. Of course you can, if you accept the premise of the second in the first place.<p>As an aside, the section that goes like:<p>&gt; exerting over the system when the system has been fine-tuned to make it easier for the human to do less, and for the operator to accept the machine’s judgment.<p>Is just incredibly bad faith nonsense. Or extremely ignorant. It&#x27;s hard to tell which.