Raw LLM Responses

Combat drones aren't doing anything that human troops weren't doing before though. People aren't realizing that they're just another tool to accomplish the same task as before, and the goal of combat operations do not change just because of new tools. The operator of the tool is still the one who must pull the trigger. The only difference is that the operator is in less danger compared to being there in person, affording them more time to verify their targets which reduces the risk to non-combatants too. The same benefits apply to police as well. Without the risk of being shot, even an armed police robot is less dangerous than the same operating officer would be in person, because they no longer need to shoot to protect themselves. The operator is fully responsible for whatever they do via the robot, and it does not make sense to believe that merely having a robot would somehow elicit more inappropriate actions that the officer wouldn't do in person. Besides, there is no reason the police wouldn't prefer *non-lethal* options like tasers or rubber bullets, as the slightly lower effectiveness for self-defense compared to guns is no longer an issue except in situations where a victim's life is in danger. If an officer uses lethal force to save the victim, what ethical difference does it make if done in person or through a robot? None. This can only result in fewer unnecessary deaths and an increase in accountability.