Should the world come together and ban killer robots? Maybe wait until after they're done kicking the little ball around?
I'm on the fence. There are lots of benefits to having killer robots around, right?
https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/killer-robots-must-be-banned-u-n-secretary-general-says-00603020
1 edit
From the OP's article:
“Machines selecting and engaging their target and taking a life—without human control and judgment. That is morally repugnant,” Guterres said in a speech about AI governance in Geneva. “Let us call them what they are: killer robots.”
As prophesied in the holy scriptures of Terminator.
@wildgrass saidShould be banned. Along with poison gas and biological weapons--too high a risk that non-combatants would be killed.
Should the world come together and ban killer robots? Maybe wait until after they're done kicking the little ball around?
I'm on the fence. There are lots of benefits to having killer robots around, right?
https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/killer-robots-must-be-banned-u-n-secretary-general-says-00603020
1 edit
@moonbus saidIt seems like a no-brainer. I'm trying to figure out what the counter-argument might be, and why it hasn't happened yet.
Should be banned. Along with poison gas and biological weapons--too high a risk that non-combatants would be killed.
Like there's this Guardian article from 2017 about how it's too late and impossible to stop? Maybe it's a slippery slope argument where "well, if you ban killer robots then what's next is the libs tell us we can't use pencils anymore"?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/22/killer-robots-international-arms-traders
1 edit
@wildgrass saidThe counterargument is always the same: 'they' have them, so we must have them, too, otherwise we're at a disadvantage if they use them and we cannot respond at the same level. If 'they' have some weapon we don't have, then we have to escalate to the next higher level, if 'they' use the one weapon we don't have. It's slippery slope UP argument, supposedly to prevent escalation.
It seems like a no-brainer. I'm trying to figure out what the counter-argument might be, and why it hasn't happened yet.
Like there's this Guardian article from 2017 about how it's too late and impossible to stop? Maybe it's a slippery slope argument where "well, if you ban killer robots then what's next is the libs tell us we can't use pencils anymore"?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/22/killer-robots-international-arms-traders
Slippery slope arguments are bosh. Just because someone says a,b,c, no one and nothing compels us to say d. Just because some country employs autonomous killing machines, we are not compelled to escalate to nuclear or whatever. We still have the option of responding with massive conventional weaponry.