Killer Robots Reconsidered: Could AI Weapons Actually Save Lives? (thebulletin.org) 153
"On the surface, who could disagree with quashing the idea of supposed killer robots?" writes Slashdot reader Lasrick.
"Dr. Larry Lewis, who spearheaded the first data-based approach to protecting civilians in conflict, wants us to look a bit closer."
From the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: The proponents of a UN ban are in some respects raising a false alarm. I should know. As a senior advisor for the State Department on civilian protection in the Obama administration, I was a member of the US delegation in the UN deliberations on lethal autonomous weapons systems... Country representatives have met every year since 2014 to discuss the future possibility of autonomous systems that could use lethal force. And talk of killer robots aside, several nations have mentioned their interest in using artificial intelligence in weapons to better protect civilians. A so-called smart weapon -- say a ground-launched, sensor-fused munition -- could more precisely and efficiently target enemy fighters and deactivate itself if it does not detect the intended target, thereby reducing the risks inherent in more intensive attacks like a traditional air bombardment.
I've worked for over a decade to help reduce civilian casualties in conflict, an effort sorely needed given the fact that most of those killed in war are civilians. I've looked, in great detail, at the possibility that automation in weapons systems could in fact protect civilians. Analyzing over 1,000 real-world incidents in which civilians were killed, I found that humans make mistakes (no surprise there) and that there are specific ways that AI could be used to help avoid them. There were two general kinds of mistakes: either military personnel missed indicators that civilians were present, or civilians were mistaken as combatants and attacked in that belief. Based on these patterns of harm from real world incidents, artificial intelligence could be used to help avert these mistakes...
Artificial intelligence may make weapons systems and the future of war relatively less risky for civilians than it is today. It is time to talk about that possibility.
"Dr. Larry Lewis, who spearheaded the first data-based approach to protecting civilians in conflict, wants us to look a bit closer."
From the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: The proponents of a UN ban are in some respects raising a false alarm. I should know. As a senior advisor for the State Department on civilian protection in the Obama administration, I was a member of the US delegation in the UN deliberations on lethal autonomous weapons systems... Country representatives have met every year since 2014 to discuss the future possibility of autonomous systems that could use lethal force. And talk of killer robots aside, several nations have mentioned their interest in using artificial intelligence in weapons to better protect civilians. A so-called smart weapon -- say a ground-launched, sensor-fused munition -- could more precisely and efficiently target enemy fighters and deactivate itself if it does not detect the intended target, thereby reducing the risks inherent in more intensive attacks like a traditional air bombardment.
I've worked for over a decade to help reduce civilian casualties in conflict, an effort sorely needed given the fact that most of those killed in war are civilians. I've looked, in great detail, at the possibility that automation in weapons systems could in fact protect civilians. Analyzing over 1,000 real-world incidents in which civilians were killed, I found that humans make mistakes (no surprise there) and that there are specific ways that AI could be used to help avoid them. There were two general kinds of mistakes: either military personnel missed indicators that civilians were present, or civilians were mistaken as combatants and attacked in that belief. Based on these patterns of harm from real world incidents, artificial intelligence could be used to help avert these mistakes...
Artificial intelligence may make weapons systems and the future of war relatively less risky for civilians than it is today. It is time to talk about that possibility.
Which results in less innocent deaths? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Which results in less innocent deaths? (Score:3)
The risk in thinking about the doomsday stuff like that is you miss the day to day stuff. Iran probably shot down that plane from human twitchiness about incoming attack. If a machine had such a hair trigger setting, they would know you have to ground planes before setting it there.
Re: (Score:3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_missile_system - "Target threat classification is automatic and the system can be operated with little operator input, if desired. The high performance computing system combi
Re: (Score:2)
"Target classification" is a display item only. NO SAM system in the world will automatically fire missiles without human input.
No, this was almost certainly a case of a human making a bad decision, out of fear - something a robot would not feel.
Re: Which results in less innocent deaths? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well the thing is, we already have very capable weapons of indiscriminate destruction. You don't need an army of AI bots, you need one loyal bomber crew and a megaton class nuke. In low intensity wars it's all about precision otherwise you only cause more outrage and more enemies. There's a theory that eventually we'll stop caring because nobody's at risk - they're all like drone pilots thousands of miles away from the action.
But that doesn't stop the problem of an escalating conflict, if you kill 100 enemi
Re: (Score:2)
Programming a whole bunch of AIs with those rules will result in exactly what the occupiers want - mass deaths and destruction, while claiming that it was all down to a computer error and they will look at it and fix it so that it won't happen until the next time it does.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you re-phrase that into something coherent, rather than a confused run-on sentence?
Re: (Score:2)
Which results in less innocent deaths?
I'd certainly kill fewer people if people learned the difference between "less" and "fewer". (None of them are innocent, however.)
Re: (Score:2)
Both will be wrong less often than humans are (Score:5, Insightful)
WHATEVER the reasons that humans screw up, and there are many reasons, it doesn't sound like the article is suggesting that the system choose a target INSTEAD OF humans. Rather, it seems to suggest that after a human has picked a target, the system serves as a fail-safe - BOTH have to agree before the weapon activates.
So if a polite tells the missile system. "take out that Russian helicopter over there", the system can say "that isn't a Russian helicopter".
The number of incidents in which both the human and the system fail to detect a problem would be strictly less than the number of incidents in which only the human screws up. Unless, of course, the human becomes overly reliant on the system, becoming careless because they think they system will catch every mistake they make. That could be offset by letting service members know that of the system saves their ass, they will still need to answer to their superiors as to why they fired at something that wasn't actually a legitimate target.
Re: Both will be wrong less often than humans are (Score:2)
Like, "take out that American military plane" and the system responds with "that's actually a Ukranian commercial airline".
Re: (Score:2)
I can't imagine the military would go for that because it would create a new defence against these weapons - trick the AI into thinking you are not supposed to be blown up.
The US could blow up cities WW2 style. We don't wa (Score:5, Insightful)
The Truman Carrier Battle group along with the six B-52s could take out most of the major buildings in Iran with ONE strike. The US has more than enough firepower to level entire cities. You know why we isntesd target individuals? Because we WANT to avoid civilian casualties, that's a top priority. If the system worked well, they'd want it. If it was easily fooled and didn't stop civilian casualties, then they wouldn't want it, because it doesn't work. Then it would need to be sold to TSA instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Dr. Larry Lewis is apparently ignorant that in war civilians are the primary target.
Re: (Score:2)
Dr. Larry Lewis is apparently ignorant that in war civilians are the primary target.
In some wars, i.e. the Holocaust, Rwanda and Kosovo, that seems to be true. My impression is that in most wars, each side is fighting to control resources and the civilians are just in the way. Worst case (and this does happen way too often), the civilians are seen as aiding the other side and thus are legitimate targets. It's a good rationalization, especially if you're frustrated and just want to smash something.
Which points out why TFA might have an illusory hope. The Good Guys (that's us) just want to a
Re: (Score:2)
https://youtu.be/PirMzWBE8Yo?t... [youtu.be]
That shoving a big thing while expositioning thing was ripped straight out of Transformers: The Movie.
https://youtu.be/4XZF2t8_h7A?l... [youtu.be]
Very similar shoving animation too.
Re: Which results in less innocent deaths? (Score:2)
That's not true. Their presence and mission were made legal by an act of Congress. Just because Congress used faulty evidence to justify the war does not make the war illegal. Congress is the law.
Obama had a 90% civilian causality rate (Score:5, Insightful)
Mind you, I don't want to spare Obama. Bush Jr & Trump are just as bad, and Trump may be worse, he's actively encouraged civilian casualties with questionable pardons, even more reliance on mercenaries and even less oversight. But again, that's not to take away how bad everyone else (including Clinton & Bush Sr) are.
Want to stop killing people? Here's a crazy idea, stop killing people. First things first do the Green New Deal so we can have energy independence (real independence, we're still a net energy importer) and get the hell out of the Middle East and South America. Next do more social programs and jobs programs so that we're not reliant on the Military to keep our economy going. And while we're at it follow bloody damned international law.
Christ, we've got kids on their way to the Mid East who weren't born when we started these wars. We've always been at war with Eurasia.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Want to stop killing people? Here's a crazy idea, stop killing people. First things first do the Green New Deal so we can have energy independence (real independence, we're still a net energy importer) and get the hell out of the Middle East and South America. Next do more social programs and jobs programs so that we're not reliant on the Military to keep our economy going. And while we're at it follow bloody damned international law.
Killing other humans is a core competencey of humans. As terrible as it sounds, we either enjoy killing each other or are the most masochistic species to inhabit the planet, continually doing something we hate to do.
I don't like it one bit, and I'm pretty certain that our genetic hyperagressivenes will cause us to make ourselves extinct some day, but it's pretty hard to deny we seem to like lilling other humans.
This is virtually all human groups, not just Americans.
Re: Obama had a 90% civilian causality rate (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
WTF I don't know what kind of friends you have who enjoy killing humans, but they scare me. What do you do for fun on the weekends, "oh let's go over to Jerry's and knock off some blokes, good fun." In order to enjoy killing people you have to dehumanize them.
I'm not violent, but now you are assigned to explain why the world is in constant warfare and how it is human nature to hate killing other people.
Deny that killing other humans is a huge part of humanity.
Re: (Score:2)
now you are assigned to explain why the world is in constant warfare
It's less and less all the time. It's been a while since we've had anything major, just some minor skirmishes around the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Deny that killing other humans is a huge part of humanity.
Its not, that's why the other side always has to be dehumanized. Killing slants, muzzies, kikes, etc, not humans. I remember talking to Vietnam vets and how much effort was put in in training to teach the recruits that they going to kill kooks, not humans.
Re: (Score:3)
Deny that killing other humans is a huge part of humanity.
Its not, that's why the other side always has to be dehumanized. Killing slants, muzzies, kikes, etc, not humans. I remember talking to Vietnam vets and how much effort was put in in training to teach the recruits that they going to kill kooks, not humans.
But we do thatr dehumanizing. I think you are caught up in the concept that all warfare is the fault of the evil Americans. This is simply not true, and is a meme of those who are bust dehumanizing Americans for their own purposes.
It is most very interesting that while we claim all evil is the fault of the Americans, we even have a term to discredit and render null anyone who dares to mention the incredible atrocities visited upon humans by the National Socialist movement in 1930's 1940's Germany. I'll b
Re: (Score:2)
You';re jumping to conclusions about what I think, especially since I particularly mentioned kikes to reference the Nazi's, I mentioned the American vets as those are the ones I personally met.
People do what you are doing, divide into us and them and those that are running things like it that way as their biggest fears are things like the Christmas armistice that spontaneously happened during WWI, suddenly soldiers were fraternizing with the enemy and realizing they were ordinary people like them.
Re: (Score:2)
You';re jumping to conclusions about what I think, especially since I particularly mentioned kikes to reference the Nazi's, I mentioned the American vets as those are the ones I personally met.
Quite purposely - I'm trying to shake you off your concept that humans aren't inherently violent. And you haven't provided anything to change my mind.
People do what you are doing, divide into us and them
What an odd thing to gather form my argument. I'm not trying to divide anyone from anyone. I think that humans have a fatal flaw that will probably drive us extinct. I don't want that at all.
I merely look at what is, what is happening, what people are doing to each other - and then ask Why?
That listing I gave you is incomplete - I got tired of typing, a
It's not, we're a social species (Score:2)
Science has vastly increased food production and per worker productivity so we don't notice the wealth disparity as much, but automation means that's about to change. We're entering an age where that 1% doesn't need the 99% anymore, and will have automated kill bots to keep us at bay. It ain't gonna
Before I forget one other reason we know war (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
isn't in our nature, it takes a massive amount of training to get soldiers to kill on command. Go look up a YouTuber named Beau of the Fifth Column. He's great, and he's got several videos on the subject. Basic training and our entire military system is designed to make killers out of humans that aren't really killers.
I already posted a short and incomplete listing of all the killing of humans by other humans that goes on. Seriously - saying that humans aren't in a hurry to kill the "other is right up there with trickle down theory in level of denial.
Re: (Score:2)
how it is human nature to hate killing other people.
I recall learning about soldiers who came back from the front in WW1 and proudly mentioned that they hadn't killed anyone. I think you are confusing the capability of people to kill other people with actually liking it. Most people will be able to kill another human being, if enough is at stake. If people don't agree, ask any parent... Most will never come to that point.
If people really enjoyed killing each other, then why can't I recall anyone in my circle of acquaintances (100s of people) who was murdered? I know of quite a few who died in unfortunate accidents, mostly car accidents. Diseases, suicides, yes, murdered or victim of manslaughter? Not a single one. Do you have a news line bias, or am I living in the happy corner of the world..? I sincerely hope the former is the case...
Can you find the listing of genocides in modern times that I posted? Were all the millions of people that were slaughtered suicides or something? Did the murderers cry the whole time they were killing this millions? How does genocide occur without consent of those doing the killing, or do you support the Nurmenburg tril excuse "I was only following orders"?
I can post it again, although it is long and depressing reading. And not even complete.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't need your link on genocides, I wasn't trying to make a point that people don't kill others. I was making the point they don't do it as lightly as you make it sound. Outright dismissal? Nice bubble you have there, citizen. Carry on.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not dismissing your point on genocide, I'm well aware of some of the atrocities that people have submitted others to (which is why I didn't care for your list).
Well, you sure are dismissing it, and you don't care for my list because it completely contradicts your narrative.
NOw if you were gpoipng to actually make a cogent argument counter to mine, you would take that list and intelligently explain why in spite of that lisitng I gave you of the constant death humans deal to other humans,.
It's not easy when I can cite facts and figures, and your offhand rejection of them with nothing else but an anecdote or two is like a little kid going Neeneer never! "I'm r
Re: (Score:2)
You put the basic premise up, that we either enjoy killing each other ... And I just argued that despite the massacres that mankind has seen and caused, this is not due to the enjoyment of killing. I just don't see any solid argument for that alleged general enjoyment. I had a look at your Wikipedia link about genocides, which, as I expected, didn't enrich my level of knowledge, so my initial response to that was entirely right, I didn't need to read it.
Simplified that for you - Your narrative survives by cognitive dissonance.
Re: (Score:2)
WTF I don't know what kind of friends you have who enjoy killing humans, but they scare me.
I do not have any friends who enjoy killing humans; however, I have met people like that. Of course, they don't expose that part of themselves socially usually... however; some of the younger ones have not learned social skills yet and do expose themselves.
It is unwise to not face reality in all of its ugliness and grandeur. There are people out there who enjoy killing others... and they seem normal in most other aspects.
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdotter Ol Olsoc was describing the mechanism: "... doing something we hate to do".
I'm not really sure what you mean by "mechanism" here. "doing" is an action, not a mechanism.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it was Himmler who emphasized that fearful people happily commit any crime in the name of security.
"One basic principle must be the absolute rule for the S. S. men. We must be honest, decent, loyal, and comradely to members of our own blood and nobody else... I also want to talk to you, quite frankly, on a very grave matter. Among ourselves it should be mentioned quite frankly, and yet we will never speak of it publicly. Just as we did not hesitate on June 30th, 1934 to do the duty we were bidden, and stand comrades who had lapsed, up against the wall and shoot them, so we have never spoken about it and
Re: (Score:2)
I think it was Himmler who emphasized that fearful people happily commit any crime in the name of security.
"Among ourselves it should be mentioned quite frankly, and yet we will never speak of it publicly... It was that tact ... that made us never discuss it among ourselves, never to speak of it. It appalled everyone, and yet everyone was certain that he would do it the next time if such orders are issued and if it is necessary." - Heinrich Himmler
https://quotepark.com/authors/heinrich-himmler/ [quotepark.com]
The first rule of Nazi club is you do not talk about Nazi club.
Wow (but not necessarily in a good way)
It's just the ruling class (Score:3, Insightful)
As for why we fall for it, well until recently resources were so finite that a good portion of folks starved and even now 60-70% of folks in developed countries live one paycheck away from homelessness. People do not make good, rational cho
Re: (Score:2)
So if I read you correctly, if there was no ruling class, there would be no killing. Interesting hypothesis. Perhaps this could be tested out on some island. Only put poor people there, ensure that they had resources, and watch the utopia come about.
Re:Obama had a 90% civilian causality rate (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Obama had a 90% civilian causality rate (Score:4, Insightful)
"First things first do the Green New Deal"
Just my 2 cents
Why? (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
What else besides a large scale gov't action is going to get us off fossil fuels?
Why? You're obviously hinting that a 'dependence on oil" keeps us involved in wars, but we're self-sufficient with oil right now, being net exporter of fossil fuels [bloomberg.com]. If we're involved in a country, it's not because of oil or gas - unless it's to protect and guarantee the supply of oil and gas for our allies, mainly in Europe and Asia. We don't need it - they do.
Moving to solar and wind, however, would make us MORE dependent on other countries as we are NOT self-sufficient with solar cells [eia.gov] and rely upon China [reuters.com] and other countries for our rare earth elements, which includes neodymium and dysprosium, among others required for solar and wind sources.
The Private Sector is making jobs but not good jobs. Folks can't keep roofs over their heads. They can't get married and have kids. That's going to blow up in our faces soon. Large numbers of men with no jobs, no job prospects and no wives === wars. Nasty ones.
Unemployment averaged 3.67% last year [bls.gov], and real wages are increasing quite vigorously [stlouisfed.org]. And more importantly, wages at the low end are growing faster than mid and high end jobs [theatlantic.com]. And there are more women than men [countrymeters.info].
As usual, literally everything you claim is a lie. A fabrication. Provably so. Try again - because everything you just claimed is a flat-out lie.
Net exporter doesn't mean we're not dependent (Score:2)
The point of the Green New Deal (besides the "New Deal" part") is that the private sector can't compete with China's solar panels (which are subsidized by the extreme poverty large swaths of Chinese workers live in). So the way we become independent of China is by having our gov't step in.
Real wages aren't rising because of low unemployment, they're rising because minimum wage is being raised piece meal across the
Re:Net exporter doesn't mean we're not dependent (Score:5, Informative)
The point of the Green New Deal (besides the "New Deal" part") is that the private sector can't compete with China's solar panels (which are subsidized by the extreme poverty large swaths of Chinese workers live in). So the way we become independent of China is by having our gov't step in.
So we triple or quadruple our spending, to achieve essentially nothing. What does that do for inflation? I am sure you're all for a trade war and trying to bring down China, right? After all - they treat workers like garbage, and should be challenged at each step. Big kudos for President Trump there, forcing the Chinese to negotiate, right?
Real wages aren't rising because of low unemployment, they're rising because minimum wage is being raised piece meal across the country. The increases still aren't keeping pace with inflation as reported by the gov't let alone real inflation (e.g. the price of food, rent, healthcare & education).
I don't think you know what "real wages" are. Educate yourself [wikipedia.org]. They account for inflation - and they are growing, quite substantially, on the low end of the scale.
And about minimum wage workers? It's less than 3% of workers [accuchex.com] who earn minimum wage. It's less than the number of people who are still unemployed.
So what about the fact that low-end wages are growing even faster than mid-and-high end wages? What about the fact there are more females than males? What about the fact that real wages - meaning AFTER inflation - is increasing? Again - you're just spouting things that are flat-out false. Provably so.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The Department of Energy, after gaining new leadership under Trump
We have always known that you are nutty, but this takes the cake.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Completely ruined the credibility of the post.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump may be worse, he's actively encouraged civilian casualties with questionable pardons
Can you name any casualties that have arisen because of the pardons? Any? You claim they've already happened - please enlighten us.
Re: (Score:3)
You claim they've already happened
No he didn't. He claimed that pardoning war criminals encourages more war crimes and discourages reporting them. Even if there were more civilian casualties because of the pardons, it's very unlikely he would have access to that data. He doesn't need to cite a specific example to make his point and you know it.
Of course, this dishonest mode of debate is par for the course for you.
Re: (Score:3)
None have happened - yet the tense provided was past tense. No casualties? Then it's crying because Orange Man Bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Tense? Really, you're going to try and be that pedantic? It's very clear he was talking about the pardon, which did happen in the past, but continues to have an effect.
Furthermore, just as it's impossible for him to demonstrate any civilian casualties, it's impossible for you to demonstrate a lack of civilian casualties. All we know is that the president has taken actions that encourage civilian casualties and war crimes.
Re: (Score:3)
Can you name any casualties that have arisen because of the pardons? Any? You claim they've already happened - please enlighten us.
Because so far - I haven't heard of any casualties that have arisen from that pardon.
Re:No (Score:4, Informative)
His own soldiers talked about much worse (Score:2, Interesting)
We do see them though in the statistics on civilian casualties, which number in the hundreds of thousands at the low end and the millions on the high (depending on who you want to believe). But the Establishment figured out that they can't have Endless War if the media is going to report on it. Ask yourself when was the last time
Re: (Score:2)
First things first do the Green New Deal so we can have energy independence (real independence, we're still a net energy importer) and get the hell out of the Middle East and South America.
Would this be the same Green New Deal that requires us to buy more and more solar PV cells from Asia? The same deal that would make use dependent on imports of rare earth metals, lithium, cobalt, and other minerals that the federal government has effectively banned mining for in the USA? The same deal that will require a continent wide electrical grid to provide power as winds and sunlight shift throughout the days and seasons?
The Green New Deal is a plan for energy poverty. Nuclear fission reactors prod
No it would be the GND (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
that has the US Gov't hiring Americans to build solar panels instead of more useless tanks that even the Generals say they don't want.
Instead of making battle tanks that the military doesn't want it's government spending for solar panels that electrical utilities don't want. This is still pork barrel spending, only now it's given a "green wash" to make it more popular among voters that the money is buying votes from. It's corporate welfare for an industry that needs to learn to sink or swim after 40 years of subsidies. It's a tax break for wealthy investors, large (utilities and the people that own them) and small (for people that can
Re: (Score:2)
You went into this topic to push the Green New Deal? Please. The United States produces enough of its own crude and CNG that even if we stay on fossil fuels for awhile, we'll be okay. Refinery capacity is still a problem, which can be solved (if necessary). Green New Deal will just bankrupt us and turn us into someone's client state. Hooray.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Then war will literally be impossible, as the entire planet will be under one system."
Comical.
Does your military err on the side of caution? (Score:2)
Does any military err on the side of caution?
If it does, then AI will enable it to do less harm.
If it doesn't, then AI will enable it to do more harm.
If AI-based intelligence data conflicts with meat-based intelligence data, which do you listen to? You probably listen to the meat. Meat trusts fellow meat.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean that military that is willing to kill countless bystanders just so to do a targeted, illegal kill of one person (i.e. a war crime in itself)?
Kamikaze drones? (Score:2)
So who's behind the opposition to killer robots? My pet conspiracy theory is that it's military contractors that earn huge profits from selling "conventional" high-tech jet fighters. An air-force dominated by drones would be cheaper to maintain than an air-force where each aircraft needs to carry an onboard pilot that needs extensive physical training and conditioning.
While a ban or strict limits on new weapons look nice on paper, there may be ulterior motives by contractors who feel their "products" and bo
Could AI weapons actually save lives? (Score:2)
If I may offer one point to ponder... (Score:3)
Try this context (Score:3)
Same scenario... does it work?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Killing ~150,000 japanese with nukes, and causing on top of that another ~150,000 slow death by fallout is proclaimed to have saved a similar amount of american lives.
Considering that the country, just like Germany had basically no resources anymore, that sounds rather unlikely. It would had made more sense to bomb a military target, or simply big bridge, to "show off with the bombs" instead of murdering so many people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fritz Haeber thought chemical weapons would be less horrific than bullets and shrapnel. History disagrees with him, but he didn't set out to invent a more horrible way to kill people.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear Weapons Reconsidered: Could Nuclear Weapons Actually Save Lives?
Same scenario... does it work?
Yes, so far our development of nuclear weapons has kept us safer. Removing our ability to turn another nation into a sea of molten glass will only provoke them to attack us.
Has everyone failed to notice how quickly Iran backed down from attacking US citizens when the result was the death of a high ranking officer in their military? They attacked our embassy, we came in force with helicopters and highly trained warriors. They then lost an officer as he was leaving the area of the attack. After that we re
Nukes work as a deterrent (Score:2)
Hell, this is a nerd forum. Haven't you ever read a sci-fi story about Endless Wars by machine? Or how about the background plot to Dune (e.g. the Butlerian Jihad).
"Save lives. With murder." (Score:4, Insightful)
American logic, if there ever was any.
This is how you will be remembered in the history books.
Downmod me all you like; I don't even hate you. (Not American, remember?)
Too sad for hate, this is.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, how'd that "Peace in our times!" thing work out for Europe, eh?
There will always be people willing to kill others. Being able to kill them, without killing others you did not mean to, is a good thing.
Unless you are arguing Gandhi's view, that it is better to surrender to evil and be killed virtuously? In which case, I hope you demand that the police stop protecting you, too, so you can die with your virtue intact.
Yes (Score:2)
Yes, they could. If I had all the AI killer robots in the world and they were all pointed at my enemies, and others, they could definitely save my life with very little loss of my life.
There is no "AI"... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Reboot of ... (Score:2)
... think of the children.
Authority? None. (Score:2)
I've worked for over a decade to help reduce civilian casualties in conflict
You've failed for over a decade to reduce civilian casualties of war. Come back and talk to us when you actually know WTF you're talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To win a war you have to break your enemy's will to fight. You have to achieve total victory and your enemy has to surrender unconditionally. Otherwise you're just putting off the inevitable future war.
So you're saying the U.S. and Vietnam are inevitably going to war in the future? And North Korea, too.
You break your enemy's will to fight by killing civilians.
Or you could just defeat their military.
Total war is not pretty and nobody should ever want it, but if it has to be fought you should go all out and win it. You can't win by tip-toeing around trying not to hurt anybody.
There are no winners in such a situation.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the Spanish have been plotting for over a century to get back at us for the Spanish-American War because we didn't finish them off with genocide like real warriors
Re: (Score:3)
The last war actually won by the United States was WWII.
The last time that you understood history hasn't happened yet.
I'm in favor of non-lethal AI tech (Score:2)
I'm a practitioner in the field of AI (non-military) and I'm in favor of non-lethal AI tech on the battlefield. Aerial surveillance, tracking, friend-or-foe, multispectral object detection, acoustic pattern recognition, etc. Human must always be the one making the decision to kill, no ifs or buts about it, but if the human is better informed, there's no question in my mind that civilian casualty rate could be vastly decreased.
Delusional Validation-Seeking Psycopathic Fantasy (Score:2)
Probably (Score:2)
Largely a hypothetical debate (Score:2)
This is largely an irrelevant, hypothetical debate: As soon as war breaks out, all sides do whatever it takes to defeat their enemies, regardless of legality or morality. They spend far more time, effort, & money on their propaganda machines to keep the public in favour of the war & to redirect their attention away from the war crimes & crimes against humanity being committed. The military in any country also sets up its oversight & accountability systems to be as opaque & ineffective as
Re: (Score:2)
Quit thinking too much (Score:2)
Wrong question. (Score:2)
The question of "Can programmers get it right?" is never discussed.
Terrible justification (Score:2)
If humans make errors, we interview them and our findings may lead to changes in training or courts marshal.
If a robot makes an error, we have no idea why, but the vendor has promised they'll look at the data and it will get patched the next release. We have to trust them on this because when the same robot makes another error, they tell us it's a different error, but it will be fixed in the next release.
The only way killer robots are even approaching acceptability in a free and democratic state is if the p
Totally different things (Score:2)
He's equating two things that are totally different. He's talking about AI systems that warn, "There are civilians present, you shouldn't attack." The proposed bans on killer robots are about systems that say, "I'm going to kill that person," without any human in the loop to approve it. The first one is a good idea that could maybe save lives. The second one is a terrible idea. It's the second one people are opposed to, but he's talking about the first one and pretending they're the same.
Absolutely, unequivocally NO. (Score:2)
2. Given the above, we should not be putting weapons of war under the direct control of machines using that highly flawed, highly limited (excuse for) technology.
3. Furthermore: we should NOT be making war 'cleaner' or 'easier'! If anything, we should be making it harder, messier, and more personal for everyon
Protect their people (Score:2)
"...several nations have mentioned their interest in using artificial intelligence in weapons to better protect civilians..."
sure, that's how they will sell it, but what it will be used for, is quite probably the opposite.
Re: (Score:2)
Who do we blame when the worst outcome, occurs?
One programmer and one from the middle management, and the Scrum Master, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
That is what makes those killer robots: allowing the wealthy to control without consent of the population. They are scalable too.
It also makes the argument in the main topic deceptive.
"We're at war with country X and we'll tell our citizens when we deem it necessary".
the same argument applies to AI. It is so scaleable. It allows you to do sophisticated monitoring and controlling of the whole population.