Slashdot Mirror
The UN Will Consider Banning Killer Robots (hrw.org)
Friday the United Nations agreed to discuss a ban on "killer robots" in 2017. The 123 signatories to a long-standing conventional weapons pact "agreed to formalize their efforts next year to deal with the challenges raised by weapons systems that would select and attack targets without meaningful human control," according to Human Rights Watch.
"The governments meeting in Geneva took an important step toward stemming the development of killer robots, but there is no time to lose," said Steve Goose, arms director of Human Rights Watch, a co-founder of the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots. "Once these weapons exist, there will be no stopping them. The time to act on a pre-emptive ban is now."
schwit1 reminded us that IEEE Spectrum ran a guest post Thursday by AI professor Toby Walsh, who addressed the U.N. again this week. "If we don't get a ban in place, there will be an arms race. And the end point of this race will look much like the dystopian future painted by Hollywood movies like The Terminator."
schwit1 reminded us that IEEE Spectrum ran a guest post Thursday by AI professor Toby Walsh, who addressed the U.N. again this week. "If we don't get a ban in place, there will be an arms race. And the end point of this race will look much like the dystopian future painted by Hollywood movies like The Terminator."
Like many of the proclamations from the UN, such a ban will have little influence over the development and use of "killer robots".
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Besides, I disagree w/ this proposal for a simple reason. We should avoid intervening in other countries, such as Syria. But if we have to go in, I'd rather send in killer robots after ISIS rather than American (or any other) humans who'll get killed or maimed for life. We should have killer robots substitute soldiers: it would also solve the issue of a depleted military as well as the idea for a draft
If you're not man enough to look the enemy in the eyes while killing him, you're... American. The term is becoming synonymous with coward, and I'm ashamed.
From carpet bombing Dresden to napalming villages in Viet Nam to drone strikes in Afghanistan, it's clear that American soldiers are not men enough to risk their own lives to spare civilians.
As the summary says, the proposed ban is on devices which "select and attack targets without meaningful human control". So basically none of what you wrote applies.
In fact, it's the exact opposite of "macrocosm of 2nd amendment arguments in the US" - supporters of the second amendment point out that "guns don't kill people, people kill people"; their argument is that the device is controlled by a person, who can do good or bad with a steel pipe too.
Generals and terrorist leaders have already been using robots for quite some time. Biological ones, that is. They haven't risked their own lives, either.
Ezekiel 23:20
Whoever develops them anyway wins world war 3.
No one wins world war 3.
"If you're not man enough to look the enemy in the eyes while killing him, you're... American. The term is becoming synonymous with coward, and I'm ashamed."
The objective of war is not to look "man enough" but to kill sufficiently large numbers of enemy that he will no longer be inclined to attack you.
The idea is to kill the enemy without getting killed. There are no points for style. We try to limit death of non combatants but if they're in the kill zone that's just the way the cookie crumbles. You fight wars to win because the alternative is something no one want to experience. American soldiers put themselves in harms way if needed but they are trained to survive while accomplishing the mission.
The same can be said about any bullet, when fired they can not be stopped. This proposal says picking the tearget must involve humans.
"Death, destruction, disease, horror. That's what war is all about, Anan. That's what makes it a thing to be avoided."
Star Trek The Original Series: "A Taste of Armageddon"
Exactly. One of the consistent and reasonable critiques of modern American warfare is that because there is no draft, the influential wealthy and policy-making classes have no personal incentive to avoid war. Many people know few or even no service members. The further you push human beings away from the horrors of war, the more those people will be willing to engage in war.
I've met people who've been personally tortured by foreign heads of state. I've seen people fighting politically to pull their countries together in the face of what seems like neverending war and oppression by warlords. And I've read the stories of people who have seen their countries fall apart in the face of characteristic propaganda and strong men taking power. The less real all of this is and the less human it is, the more people will be willing to stay unengaged in matters of life and death.
Real lawyers write in C++
"Your purpose is not to die for your country. Your purpose is to make the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
If you think that making war is all about being "fair", you're doing it wrong....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
US gear only falls into the hands of our enemies in 2 scenarios: we sell it to them, or it gets seized from our allies
Actually, there's another third common scenario: You sell it to your 'allies' (you know, nice friendly countries like Saudi Arabia) and they sell it on, leaving you with no control over its final destination.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News