UN Debates Rules Surrounding Killer Robots
First time accepted submitter khb writes "It seems that the UN has started a debate on whether to place limits or bans on robots that can kill without manual supervision. It seems that bombs are viewed as 'kinder' than robots which might be programmed to achieve specific ends (e.g. destroy that bridge, kill anyone carrying a gun, etc.)."
For once I agree with the UN.
I don't think it should ever get so easy as to to allow machines making the kill decision
without a human in the loop.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
It's also against the rules to assassinate enemy leaders outside war, but ok to initiate a war with a full frontal assault killing hubdreds of thousands on both sides.
Ironically, that's less upsetting -- getting your nation's ass whooped -- than getting your Fearless Leader killed.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Robots should find an empty field somewhere and self-destruct after some period of time without receiving commands. We do not want to wind up with the same situation we have with land mines -- dangerous leftovers from wars that ended decades ago. Imagine an autonomous robot getting lost during a war, only to get uncovered 10 years after the war ends and going on a rampage (say, killing every armed police officer it finds)...
Palm trees and 8
It's worth noting that the premise for almost every Robot story Asimov wrote was "something unacceptable despite the robot following the Three Laws". That's really what I liked about those stories: by extension to human moral codes, they're exploring how you can't prevent problems/evil with a simple set of rules.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I'd prefer to see wars were always general against general, preferably armed with hand axes and stone tipped spears.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Would you like a patch for your missing eye?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
So you believe that the ONLY alternative to drone attacks is to convert to Sharia law?
Who, exactly, is going to impose Sharia law on the US? And I don't mean who would LIKE to. Who, exactly, has that capability?
How about you look up who has veto power at the UN. Here's a hint, the US is one of them. If we don't like it, we can veto it.
Exactly HOW is ANYONE going to replace any part of the US legal system or Constitution with Sharia law?
"Ironically, that's less upsetting -- getting your nation's ass whooped -- than getting your Fearless Leader killed."
Fearless Leaders write the rules.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."