Now when I think about it, no one seems to ever mention how infinitely more energy efficient biological life is, compared to machines. That's our real advantage and why robots will never win. Robot with mental and physical capabilities of a human body would eat through such an abysmal amount of resource that energy bill alone would send you bankrupt, and that's assuming you know how the frick to provide it to him continuously with him staying autonomous.
>more energy efficient biological life
wrong on so many levels
Biological anything is ridiculously inefficient beacuse of the bazzilion different energy conversions that have to take place for meatware to work. It looks efficient because of the incredibly poor energy density of available batteries.
>incredibly poor energy density of available batteries
That's the point, tard. Current battery tech is simply deficient for the needs of autonomous bots to operate long enough to revolutionise warfare. You want total AI domination? Then figure out how to fuel your synthetics as easy, or easier, than biologicals.
If you ignore how inefficient meatware is at extracting energy from solids, I feel like it's very efficient.
Considering how the human body outputs 100w on average, I think it's very impressive how much it is able to do before failure.
But I agree, biological methods are extremely inefficient at extracting energy.
Unless battery technology and materials science has several once in lifetime discoveries in short succession, we will never have robots of similar capacity to humans
On a side note, how much power do these things draw?
Now when I think about it, no one seems to ever mention how infinitely more energy efficient biological life is, compared to machines. That's our real advantage and why robots will never win. Robot with mental and physical capabilities of a human body would eat through such an abysmal amount of resource that energy bill alone would send you bankrupt, and that's assuming you know how the frick to provide it to him continuously with him staying autonomous.
Is it efficient if you factor in the time spent on raising and teaching a human with resources consumed spread over tge years?
Hardware needs to be designed and assembled once and its software written and uploaded.
you could make the same argument for using gene editing to pump out super soldiers with genetic memory and fast growth out of warehouses full of artificial wombs
ground drones a shit. Human form is better at going places, all these drones either are some form of shitdog or tracked/wheeled bullshit that would get stuck in a ditch/forest/hill/stairs. Keep that shit outta my hair
Two grenadiers per squad, two machine gunners, and just small arms fire from rifles and long-distance rifles.
Ideally, a 50 BMG anti-material sniper rifles would be good for destroying sniper robots, as well as helicopters, if not firepower by other means. It is an equation of mass and energy, of kinetic force and chemical reactions.
In other words:
Just frickin shoot the thing or blow it up.
Better yet, capture it, hack it, recruit the pilot.
Because I can see this realistically being deployed against American citizens, that's the perspective I'm speaking from. I've seen it with my own two eyes in person in DC in 2020, bodies in the street.
These were created for anti-sensor scouting. Everyone has night vision now so the American military will send robots with lidar-based optics detectors and a basic rifle with aimbot software for single soldier level counterbattery as the first wave of scouts.
Kick it.
We will be fricked when robots start fighting back
The robots will take over and we won't even know it happened
KILL IT! KILL IT!!
would
>gets btfo by a $900 retail drone
>spread these EVERYWHERE
>nothing personell mr. military robot
These won't be practical until they're diesel powered
Battery life on this thing is in minutes.
Now when I think about it, no one seems to ever mention how infinitely more energy efficient biological life is, compared to machines. That's our real advantage and why robots will never win. Robot with mental and physical capabilities of a human body would eat through such an abysmal amount of resource that energy bill alone would send you bankrupt, and that's assuming you know how the frick to provide it to him continuously with him staying autonomous.
>more energy efficient biological life
wrong on so many levels
Biological anything is ridiculously inefficient beacuse of the bazzilion different energy conversions that have to take place for meatware to work. It looks efficient because of the incredibly poor energy density of available batteries.
>incredibly poor energy density of available batteries
That's the point, tard. Current battery tech is simply deficient for the needs of autonomous bots to operate long enough to revolutionise warfare. You want total AI domination? Then figure out how to fuel your synthetics as easy, or easier, than biologicals.
just produce millions and cycle them
*Billions
Then were talking.
If you ignore how inefficient meatware is at extracting energy from solids, I feel like it's very efficient.
Considering how the human body outputs 100w on average, I think it's very impressive how much it is able to do before failure.
But I agree, biological methods are extremely inefficient at extracting energy.
Unless battery technology and materials science has several once in lifetime discoveries in short succession, we will never have robots of similar capacity to humans
On a side note, how much power do these things draw?
>in minutes
Yeah, about 240 minutes. That's 4 hours.
Probably the same thing the humans in the matrix though when they blacked out the skies.
Who's the battery now?
Is it efficient if you factor in the time spent on raising and teaching a human with resources consumed spread over tge years?
Hardware needs to be designed and assembled once and its software written and uploaded.
you could make the same argument for using gene editing to pump out super soldiers with genetic memory and fast growth out of warehouses full of artificial wombs
Wouldn't it be easier to just zombie up the dead, like in that Watts' tie-in short story to Echopraxia
>Melts your camera/disables a join with a high powered laser
ground drones a shit. Human form is better at going places, all these drones either are some form of shitdog or tracked/wheeled bullshit that would get stuck in a ditch/forest/hill/stairs. Keep that shit outta my hair
>no food
>no water
>no rest
>no medics
>no gear
>no morale
>no comms
>no fear
Stupid wecterners copying poccnr again
>hijab robot dog
Looks more like ninja monke putin
>erm
Don't sign your posts
Two grenadiers per squad, two machine gunners, and just small arms fire from rifles and long-distance rifles.
Ideally, a 50 BMG anti-material sniper rifles would be good for destroying sniper robots, as well as helicopters, if not firepower by other means. It is an equation of mass and energy, of kinetic force and chemical reactions.
In other words:
Just frickin shoot the thing or blow it up.
Better yet, capture it, hack it, recruit the pilot.
Better to capture than destroy, as Sun Tzu said.
Because I can see this realistically being deployed against American citizens, that's the perspective I'm speaking from. I've seen it with my own two eyes in person in DC in 2020, bodies in the street.
These were created for anti-sensor scouting. Everyone has night vision now so the American military will send robots with lidar-based optics detectors and a basic rifle with aimbot software for single soldier level counterbattery as the first wave of scouts.
>can't turn and confirm for shit with those shitty little legs
Just gonna ram it from the side with a crew vehicle, nothing personal
Only if they give it a mouth to shoot bees out of.
I wonder how well drone jammers will work against those.