this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2026
323 points (86.6% liked)

Political Memes

12121 readers
2065 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

1) Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

2) No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

3) Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

4) No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

5) No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 90 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (6 children)

Ukraine are fighting for their survival. You can't put someone's back to the wall and expect them to make the most moral, clear-headed, rational decisions.

What they have right now is Western armaments and funding. What they don't have is an inexhaustible supply of manpower. And their enemy has a much bigger supply of manpower than they do. Developing more and better autonomous weapon systems is the most rational choice in the horrendous situation they've been placed in.

The ultimate moral responsibility here is not with Ukraine. If the world had taken Russia seriously as a threat when they took Crimea, if we had moved to provide serious and meaningful security guarantees to Ukraine and apply meaningful, effective punishments to Russia (like dumping their oil and gas, as we finally, begrudgingly started to do in 2022), none of this would have happened. Instead we threw them to the wolves, and now you're here wagging your finger at them for defending themselves any way they can.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 48 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

Having better weapons than your enemy will make you safer, yes. And when they've been trying to conquer you for a thousand years or so, I think that's a fair approach.

[–] TheFogan@programming.dev 7 points 3 weeks ago (9 children)

I mean I do have to ask, what's the main perk of AI drones. IE finding one guy who can sit on a chair and pilot a remote drone, still seems significantly cheaper and more reliable than hope the AI can differentiate a group of school children from a military opperation. (though with the track records I've seen of most militaries, probably not much).

[–] Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works 28 points 3 weeks ago

Depends on what you are talking about. Using an AI to work out 'viable' targets during the planning stage? That's how you end up blowing up an Iranian girls school. Using AI to highlight vehicles and steer the drone into them after the command is given? That is becoming a necessity in Ukraine, where the jamming and other counter measures make remotely flying drones more and more difficult.

[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 18 points 3 weeks ago

I think the main advantage is the drone, once locked onto a target, cannot be jammed. Both sides have a bunch of handheld jammers, as well as bigger vehicle mounted ones, which is why this and fibre optic drones are so common.

You'd hope there wouldn't be any school children in the middle of a war zone.

[–] mech@feddit.org 13 points 3 weeks ago

The signals sent between your drone and its pilot can be jammed, or traced back to the pilot.
With autonomous drones, there is no signal.

[–] Rawrosaurus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 3 weeks ago

Signal jamming and disruption. The main perk of the autonomous drone is that it can continue functioning after losing contact. That is at least what I understood as one of the main drivers behind autonomous drone usage in Ukraine.

[–] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Send 1000 drones to an area.

Program them to understand what different types of targets look like, basic maps, etc.

Program them to know what a destroyed target looks like.

Instead of 1000 drones attacking one target over and over, you get a swarm of drones moving on from destroyed targets and they can’t be stopped by communication jammers.

[–] matlag@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 weeks ago

Ukraine already had drones capable of autonomously recognize tanks, including their type, and attack them at their known weak point. If there are people inside, this can kill them. The only "revolution" here is they can now do it on smaller drones made to track humans.

[–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 3 weeks ago

You can have swarms of drones that gather data and feed it to eachothers continuously, each making decisions individually and as a swarm, like a swarm of bees but million times as destructive, of course.

But it's just simply that 2 computers can communicate between eachothers so much faster and more efficiently than having humans in the loop

Also this allows far better autonomous operation, quite like sending an elite team somewhere they have to operate with zero contact back home

But yes, it's also really fucking terrifying thought people have actually built these things and thought it's a good idea

[–] LittleBorat3@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

Isn't the problem jamming when you have remote operation so the AI doing this self sufficiently does not need a signal anymore.

Perhaps these can be jammed too but this was part of the tech race in this war. It's why they used fiber glass cables.

[–] real_squids@sopuli.xyz 2 points 3 weeks ago

Also one guy in a chair per drone is not enough with the amount of targets present. Image recognition and value/hit probability (AI) lets one guy pilot many drones (in theory, haven't seen that yet) and still have the final say whether he wants to hit the targets it suggests.

Potentially lets you use drones farther too, find and track a target while it's flying high, confirm the thing manually, then fly below the radio horizon until it hits said target.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Kushan@lemmy.world 43 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

They're thinking "Russia has far more men than we do so we need to even the odds".

This comic is an absurdly naive take.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Shellofbiomatter@lemmus.org 39 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (10 children)

Looking back at human history and developing a bigger stick than your "neighbor" has, is a rather safe bet even if just to deter said "neighbor" from using their big stick.

For the autonomous drone point. See Ukraine vs russian conflict. Ukraine is heavily using drones to hold back russia, so yeah those are rather useful.

And as someone living next to russia, i cant wait when we get our hands on autonomous drones as a force multiplier.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] makeshift0546@lemmy.today 35 points 3 weeks ago

What a naive position of comfort you're posting from 🤣

[–] wpb@lemmy.world 25 points 3 weeks ago

Some of them don't know. One of my favorite jokes goes like this:

I work in a vacuum cleaner factory. My wife could use a vacuum cleaner, so I decided to take a different part home every day, so that eventually, I could build her a vacuum cleaner at home. But no matter how I assemble the parts I took, I always end up with a submachine gun.

It's from a German short film on napalm called The Inextinguishable Fire. Very short, worth a watch. Holds up.

[–] FluorideMind@lemmy.world 18 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

They are thinking"if we don't they will" which is the same reason why we have so many nukes in the world now

[–] BlackLaZoR@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

"if we don’t they will"

They aren't wrong tho...

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 17 points 3 weeks ago (9 children)

If we're not fighting yet, Mm having a deadlier weapon makes the cost of attacking me higher for my enemy, discouraging him. If we are already fighting, having a deadlier weapon will mean I kill more of them than they kill of us.

My enemy having a deadlier weapon makes it less costly to attack me, and makes them kill more of us.

So yes, having a deadlier weapon makes us more safe. The alternative to nobody having it is preferable, but that would require an enemy who will cooperate with me, which is a contradiction in terms.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 15 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Si vis pacem, para bellum. If you want peace, prepare for war. If there's a belligerent opponent eyeing you, your best way to ensure peace is to make sure they know it'll hurt to attack you. If you look weak then they'll have no reason to not invade. It sucks that things are this way, but it's been true for as long as humans have desired something from another. This applies from a schoolyard bully to a bellicose nation.

[–] marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today 3 points 3 weeks ago

That's why I never leave home without my napalm and child flaying device.

[–] Entertainmeonly@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] renormalizer@feddit.org 1 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

A healthy dose of Philip K Dick is exactly what those people need that still think AI weapons are a good idea.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

It's not a question of thinking they're a good idea. It's a question of recognizing that global indifference to Russia's territorial ambitions put Ukraine in a situation where they don't have the luxury of thinking about long term consequences. If their choices are "Live in a world where we brought about the existence of AI killbots (a technology that is inevitably going to be developed by someone, somewhere, probably the people currently killing us, even if we do nothing) slightly faster" or "Just fucking die", they're going to pick the first one. That's not stupidity, it's just survival. The guy who cut his arm off to escape being trapped in a ravine wasn't thinking "But what if I can't open jam jars?"

Long term thinking is for people with the luxury of long term prospects.

load more comments (1 replies)

It's a great read too. Short so should only take a single setting but who knows. Likely they will have grok just summarize it.

[–] Tarquinn2049@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I guess the goal is to develop weapons so terrible that you "wouldn't wish them on your worst enemy", thus solving the problem forever.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BlackLaZoR@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

Ask Ukrainians.

[–] NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

A machine built to end war is always a machine built to continue war.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 weeks ago

Corporatist/Oligarchist supremacism is appealing to the supremacists, and then political control an obvious step, which brings control of military ambitions, which despite econopolitical systems serves establishment economic ambitions.

The simplicity mistake of the Terminator franchise vision of Skynet, was assuming "machine supremacy" as the bug that is risked by military supremacist motives. US privatization of military budget maximization means the path to Skynet is by design, and for Oligarchist/political supremacism. Making more trillionaires aligned with Israel/oligarchist power, ensures skynet will genocide/control all opponents to that supremacism.

That "skynet seems like a bad idea" doesn't matter in nazi empire democracy where mainstream candidates are either direct angry fascism vs. fascist ID verification to use computers laws unanimous devotion to ensure Skynet control. Skynet is only a bad idea for us.

load more comments
view more: next ›