Slashdot Mirror
Musk, Woz, Hawking, and Robotics/AI Experts Urge Ban On Autonomous Weapons
An anonymous reader writes: An open letter published by the Future of Life Institute urges governments to ban offensive autonomous weaponry. The letter is signed by high profile leaders in the science community and tech industry, such as Elon Musk, Stephen Hawking, Steve Wozniak, Noam Chomsky, and Frank Wilczek. It's also signed — more importantly — by literally hundreds of expert researchers in robotics and AI. They say, "The key question for humanity today is whether to start a global AI arms race or to prevent it from starting. If any major military power pushes ahead with AI weapon development, a global arms race is virtually inevitable, and the endpoint of this technological trajectory is obvious: autonomous weapons will become the Kalashnikovs of tomorrow. Unlike nuclear weapons, they require no costly or hard-to-obtain raw materials, so they will become ubiquitous and cheap for all significant military powers to mass-produce."
Unlike nuclear weapons, they require no costly or hard-to-obtain raw materials, so they will become ubiquitous and cheap for all significant military powers to mass-produce."
They run on Windows
I heartily agree.
However, I do want research to forge ahead with gorgeous robots who force you to do things to them. Gross, unhygenic things.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I don't see how it won't be easy for anyone to retrofit a postal drone to.. go postal.
Like the summary says, nuclear weapons require expensive and hard to obtain raw materials and a significant amount of technology not common in the civilian space. This is the only reason, IMHO, that nuclear proliferation treaties work as well as they do. How does this group expect governments to keep a lid on military tech that relies on ubiquitous technology found throughout the civilian economy?
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
This tech exists already and only needs polishing. Auto-tracking and aiming. That will continue to be developed regardless. Slap it on a mobile Google car bought at the dealer, give it a route, and let 'er go!
Having humans decide who gets killed by the robot, as opposed to the robot deciding, is an added feature, and thus disposable to core dancing bear functionality.
For it to work it has to be banned by international law so rogue states can be punished. But it is trivial with soon-to-exist pieces.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Instead, it is the rise of a human psychopathic tyrant working with a force of soldiers that obediently kill at his command, with no chance of moral rebellion within his own force.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
One of the things that has consistently mystified me about Americans' complacency with drone warfare is the underlying assumption that our current monopoly on drones is going to last forever. If it's ok for the U.S. to use drones to assassinate "terrorist" anti-American agitators in Yemen, what are we going to say when China starts using drones to assassinate "terrorist" Chinese dissidents on American soil, or Europe, or elsewhere? For all intents and purposes, we're already using killbots, and the really important point here is that airborne killbots can be used (for now) with impunity across borders.
"American Exceptionalism" basically means we allow ourselves to commit war crimes with impunity.
I just don't see the point. These will be developed, and no amount of banning them will stop it or even slow it down.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
First you'll have to convince Gen. "Buck" Turgidson over at the Pentagon.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
That ship has sailed a LONG time ago... We've been making such weapons for decades.
What's a mine? What's a cruse missile? Proximity fused ground to air shells? Homing torpedos? What's all that "fire and forget" stuff we've been building?
I'm afraid the cows are ALREADY out of the barn on this....
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
{Unless of course} They run on Windows
Which would be a valid reason to introduce a new international treaty on "Crimes against sentient AI" under which to prosecute those cruel enough to subject a poor AI to running on a Windows platform~
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Even if it did, still would not stop it's development.
How do you make it so that nobody in the world can program an AI capable of pulling a trigger? What about a baseball bat? How do you stop AI written in some 15 year old basement from firing a gun that does not have a traditional trigger?
Short answer: you cannot.....the geneie was let out of the battle many many years ago....We cannot stop it at this point unless we give up electricity....worldwide....And manage to destroy all generators, all solar, wind bla bla bla you get the point. You can't compile AI without electricity.
You can't "ban" something that consists of little more than putting together some guns, some standard AI, and some standard robotics platforms. There is no way to detect violations of this ban. It's like trying to ban the use of electric motors in offensive weapons. Good luck with that.
The main purpose of such a ban is to make a bunch of people feel good about themselves and to let them demonstrate to the world what wonderful and important humanitarians they are.
Prominent world politicians urge adoption of new changes to the C++ standard concerning private inheritance and templates.
What this is trying to do is imply that because they have technical expertise in how dangerous AI-controlled weapons are, that technical expertise makes them experts about political decisions concerning weapons. It doesn't, and there is no more reason to pay attention to them than to the average guy in the street (who understands that some weapons are dangerous, and may have opinions on their use, but certainly doesn't get a national press release about it).
... Okay... so... you have an option to use a kill bot against the enemy that wants to kill you... and if you go out there... you could be killed.
Or... you send in your terminator bot and worst case they scrag the robot.
What are you going to prefer here?
A lot of people offering opinions here are not speaking from that perspective. They're speaking often as not from the perspective of some civilian ideologue that knows they're not going to go to war.
I know that if I go to war... I am going to want the best weapons my society can make for me along with the best defenses the best training and ideally leaders that are not complete fuckwits.
That means I want the robots. I want them and I want them to be fucking vicious.
Go on youtube and you'll see US soldiers cheering when air support shows up and blows the fuck out of someone shooting at them.
https://youtu.be/1IcvjD4VVjY?t...
Now... if you are a country that has the ability to build kill bots... and you might be on the firing line... do you or do you not want to use killer robots to kill your enemies?
You have to put your brain into war mode to understand the question.
My vote... is yes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
When I go to war... I go to WAR.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I think the point is to ban autonomous weapon systems, not automatic.What's the difference? An automatic weapon system can destroy targets you choose, an autonomous weapon system can destroy targets it chooses.
when I was deployed to Iraq, we had a problem with RKG3 attacks on our MRAPS. at the time, it was one of the few things that could do real damage. RKG3 are hand thrown EFP devices. when the insurgents would attack, they would target the vehicles that had crew serve weapons pointing in the other direction. this would mean that the crew member on the weapon would not always see who threw the grenade. the lead and follow vehicle gunners would have their own fields of fire to scan and would probably miss the thrower as well. leading to confusion as to who is attacking. confusion, explosions == bad things.
an automated system that scans 360 degrees hundreds if not thousands of times a second, which can acquire, track and if need be eliminate the target, would surely cut down on collateral damage and innocent people getting killed.
This is an absolutely inane idea for several reasons:
a) They already exist; you can't defend against a sea-skimming missile or SRBMs without an autonomous system, People are just too slow.
b) Bad actors are not constrained by treaties. They'll cheat. We'd be damn fools to put ourselves at a disadvantage.
What makes more sense is to have a discussion about how they're used and how they're employed. I think it's plausible that they be prohibited from being autonomously travelling or that they must have a human authorize them to continue engaging every hour or day. An outright prohibition is just polyannaish claptrap.
You're implying that we just killed a quarter million people with no context, reason, and that we did so intentionally.
No I didn't, I was doing it in the context of the Iraq war where they're understood to be excess deaths.
You're also attributing all deaths to our actions when the responsibility has to be spread around to include the taliban, various terrorist sponsors, and natural forces like famine etc that kill people without any direct human volition.
I glibly dismiss the question because it isn't intellectually valid.
If you want to talk about death tolls in war zones we can do that. But laying all the death's at our feet like we intentionally killed all those people, had no reason to in, and we are solely responsible is invalid.
It's a standard methodology. Over the period X deaths would normally be expected instead Y occur, Z=X-Y is roughly the number of excess deaths attributable to your actions. You're not as nearly guilty as someone who pulled the trigger but in a debate of whether an act contributed to the greater good the fact remains that Z lives were lost due to that act is completely relevant.
Wrong, we tried to actually rehabilitate Russia. We would not have funded their space program or made so many diplomatic gestures if we wanted to treat them like an enemy.
There was even serious talk about inviting them into NATO.
As to surrounding them with enemies... all we wanted to do was secure the self determination of past victims of their aggression. Our intention was not to threaten Russia but to give other nations a chance at freedom, modernity, and prosperity.
NATO was an alliance formed to counter Russia, it's easy to see why inviting former Warsaw pact members into NATO would be viewed as a hostile act.
So your suggestion when NATO members invoke our aid to deal with a relevant operation in their territory and put diplomatic pressure on the US to provide logistical and tactical support... we should do nothing?
It's not just the conflict itself but the internal dialogue. You don't think other countries are listening when presidential candidates talk about invading other countries like it's no big deal?
As to the legitimacy of Israel... it is no less legitimate than any other power in the middle east.
I didn't say it was illegitimate, I said that its creation was a legitimate target for criticism as a very ugly form of colonialism (lets treat the land owned by these brown people like they're not even there and let some white Europeans settle it). And their current settlement policy is so indefensible I don't know that I've actually seen anyone ever defend it.
What nation do you hail from?
Canada
As to innocent people getting killed in a war... that is not unique to the drone strike.
As to collateral damage ratios... we spend more money and effort avoiding collateral damage than any other power in world history.
In WWII the axis powers inflicted a 3-1 civilian-military death ratio, and that includes the holocaust.
The 10-1 ratios in drone strikes that I cited, which are the only decent estimate I could find, are not something to brag about.
And even if they were lower than usual they're only acceptable if the acts themselves are necessary, I find it dubious that these actors in other countries are particularly legitimate terrorist threats.
What is also plain to me is that our heart strings are being played upon here. You say what you think will effect us emotionally and psychologically.
Were I a soulless monster you would not be telling me these things. You cite civilian causalities because you know it effects me and you know I care.
See, I am aware of myself. I don't cite this becuase I don't care but because I make a point of stepping outside myself a
I stole this Sig
quote tags would be so much easier to read.
""No I didn't, I was doing it in the context of the Iraq war where they're understood to be excess deaths.""
excess deaths?
First, we're not talking about Iraq. I told you that.
I wasn't talking about Iraq, I was referring back to a previous statement I'd used that happened to include Iraq.
Second, we're talking about Afghanistan.
Third, "excess deaths" what does that mean?
Exactly what it sounds like, the additional deaths that occurred because of the conflict.
Fourth, your cited kill number did not include context, it did not separate out people that would have died if there were no war, the actual causality figures are actually highly estimated and no one really knows what they are, you conflated people killed by the enemy with people killed by the US, you conflated soldier deaths with civilians, deaths caused by famine or disease were conflated with deaths from weapons, etc etc etc.
It's approximate, which is why there are large ranges given in the estimates (I've actually chosen conservative ones), but wars can certainly cause famine and disease and those deaths matter.
Anyway, we've come to the part of the discussion where I have to start looking things up.
In regards to the Afghan war, wikipedia puts the number at:
26 thousand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Alright lets look at that source:
During the war in Afghanistan (2001–present), over 26,000 civilian deaths due to war-related violence have been documented;[1]
Hey! It's right there in the first sentence! That's actually a pretty good sentence.
29,900 civilians have been wounded.[1] Over 91,000 Afghans, including civilians, soldiers and militants, are recorded to have been killed in the conflict, and the number who have died through indirect causes related to the war may include an additional 360,000 people.[1] These numbers do not include those who have died in Pakistan.
So your source gives a bigger number than I do!
Counter the USSR's attempt to conquer europe and the world actually.
We did what we could to make the Russians feel comfortable.
The NATO expansion was a tough call, I might have actually done the same, but it would have been very threatening to Russia.
Look how the US reacted to potential communist states in South America. How do you think the US would have felt if they joined the Warsaw pact, if Canada started discussing it?
The opposition to the anti ICBM technology was also taken as bad faith. Why does Russia want the US to stop developing it unless Russia wants to intimidate the first world with nuclear weapons?
Because it changes the equation from MAD, where no one will fire their nukes, to the prospect of a winnable nuclear exchange. And that tech won't stay with the US, it will spread to places like India and Pakistan.
You don't know what the internal dialog is... you just know what is in the media. Furthermore, when has the US ever talked about invading a country like it was no big deal?
Really?
Granted that was a bombing campaign not an invasion, but anyone who was paying attention heard the neocons itching for an Iran invasion to follow up Iraq and the rumour is that it was only the higher ups in the Pentagon that managed to talk them down.
That's how EVERY country in the middle east got its current territory. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, etc. Not one of them got it any other way.
I don't know about others but Iran's borders have been stable for a very long time, and I think the others were fairly stat
I stole this Sig
I don't how many times I have to make it clear to you that i'm not going to talk about iraq because its a fucking whine and I don't find it useful on the issue of general US foreign policy or geopolitics.
I wasn't talking about Iraq!!
Yes I mentioned it at the end of my last post but the vast majority was about other topics.
Your 250k number was mostly talking about Iraq so far as I know and the methodology on that number is a fucking joke as well. But you know what... I'm not talking about it.
Hmm, what did I say again?
"Afghanistan there's possibly in the range of 250K deaths, and a lot of the country is still under Taliban rule."
So that number is specifically about Afghanistan, your own source that contradicted you was about Afghanistan, the only time I said Iraq was in explaining that I'd already talked about a similar number for that war.
As to excessive deaths... I don't find this to be a useful statistic because it conflates all deaths into one number. Its more complicated than that and I don't appreciate over simplifications.
But taking only direct conflict casualties is a massive oversimplification.
How can you possibly imagine that destabilizing a country doesn't cause excess deaths? How can you ignore that cost when launching a war?
As to NATO expansions, look at what happened to countries under Russia's sway versus our own? I have very little sympathy for the Russians whining about people leaving their sphere of influence. It isn't merely the US and Russia to consider but the people caught between. The Eastern Europeans HATE the Russians. Consider what Poland etc could be today if they had not suffered under Soviet domination? The Russians can frankly go fuck themselves on the issue with a rake. Their management of their terroritory has been incompetent for generations. Look at Russia itself. The country should be extremely rich. Vast natural resources, an impressive industrial base, a generally well educated population, and they're geographically positioned between the biggest markets in the world.
All that is completely true.
But it doesn't mean that a NATO expansion was the right move. If you try to wave a magic wand and make the world a better place you run a very serious risk of making it worse.
As to your desire for Americans to die in wars... No. You can die. Your children can die. Your people can die. I am not sacrificing my people. If you want to sacrifice yours that is your own business. Some cultures worship death and desire it for themselves and everyone. My society desires life. We want to live. I will not send my people to war with inferior weapons because people like you feel it is unfair for us to have such an overwhelming advantage. War isn't about fairness. War is about killing the enemy. Crushing him. Bring him low, looking into his eyes, and watching him break. That is war. And robotic weapons service that function. If you feel that countries without our technological sophistication shouldn't engage in war with us... I agree. Doing so is idiotic on their part. It isn't a fair fight. They can't win. So they just shouldn't. Takes two to tango.
So you love life yet you really want your enemies to die.
Autonomous weapons are kind of like nukes, nice for your side but terrifying for the other side.
When the Western hegemony drops BILLIONS will die. Billions. Civilizations will be snuffed out in days to months. As the global trade networks collapse the global economy will collapse and any country that isn't self sufficient for food will starve. England for example... they rely on food imports. To blockade England is to defeat it... for if she does not surrender she shall starve. And England isn't alone in that. many countries rely on the global trade networks to survive. Just to EAT.
This just sounds like Fox news paranoia, I
I stole this Sig