Slashdot Mirror
Elon Musk Backs Call For A Global Ban On Killer Robots (cnn.com)
An anonymous reader quotes CNN:
Tesla boss Elon Musk is among a group of 116 founders of robotics and artificial intelligence companies who are calling on the United Nations to ban autonomous weapons. "Lethal autonomous weapons threaten to become the third revolution in warfare. Once developed, they will permit armed conflict to be fought at a scale greater than ever, and at timescales faster than humans can comprehend," the experts warn in an open letter released Monday...
"Unlike other potential manifestations of AI, which still remain in the realm of science fiction, autonomous weapons systems are on the cusp of development right now and have a very real potential to cause significant harm to innocent people along with global instability," said Ryan Gariepy, the founder of Clearpath Robotics and the first person to sign the letter. More than a dozen countries -- including the United States, China, Israel, South Korea, Russia and Britain -- are currently developing autonomous weapons systems, according to Human Rights Watch.
"Unlike other potential manifestations of AI, which still remain in the realm of science fiction, autonomous weapons systems are on the cusp of development right now and have a very real potential to cause significant harm to innocent people along with global instability," said Ryan Gariepy, the founder of Clearpath Robotics and the first person to sign the letter. More than a dozen countries -- including the United States, China, Israel, South Korea, Russia and Britain -- are currently developing autonomous weapons systems, according to Human Rights Watch.
When I saw this post the first thing that popped into my mind was:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
This was one of my favorite comic books back in the 60s
This is completely, absolutely and irrevocably a good idea.
Why don't you start with banning land mines first?
Land mine is the simplest "autonomous weapon" you can have, its definition is clear and well understood, it is already actively being used (much more than "on the cusp of development") and is causing harm on civilians.
We all know why -- the US won't stop using land mines while most other countries have already stopped.
So, instead of calling for a ban (on land mines) that might actually change something, Elon is calling for a ban (on some fantasy weapon) that is mere posturing and makes him feel good.
And of course we already knew that all countries, including the good old US of A, would continue the development of such weapons regardless of such a ban.
good luck with that one, These already pretty well exist in current military lineups, none of the major powers are going to agree to this. Also the current weapons that do the most harm to innocents are the ones WITHOUT any sort of AI, cluster bombs, fuel air bombs, guns etc, a good AI I think would likely improve the situation.
From Issac Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics to this. What a pool of moral turpitude. What a dark evil future with killer robots.
They'll be made. They'll be deployed. They'll go wrong. They'll be refined and we'll be assured it will never happen again. It will.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Sure, there is going to be a period in which drones and robots can kill humans. But then as countermeasures, they will develop anti-robot robots, and before you know it, entire wars will be fought without a single human life lost
Bring in the robot soliders, I say.
How do you enforce such a ban?
Giant, killer robots.
Kim Jong-il: (in English) Hans Blix? Oh, no!
Hans Blix: Let me look around, so I can ease the UN's collective mind.
Kim Jong-il: (in English) Hans, you're breaking my balls here, Hans. You're breaking my balls!
Hans Blix: I'm sorry, but the UN must be firm with you. Let me see your whole palace, or else...
Kim Jong-il: (in English) Or else what?
Hans Blix: Or else we will be very, very angry with you. And we will write you a letter, telling you how angry we are.
Killer autonomous robots is one of the things that must be, once the tech is there.
ISIS is already using small drones to bomb their enemies. You can watch the videos online. Those are small commercial drones like the ones you can find in your local store, modified to hold a grenade. Is anybody capable to think of a possible way of avoiding that, once the proper intelligence is so easy to buy or download like small drones are today, ISIS or their offspring will use it in the same way? Once you have the first swarm of killer autonomous drones let loose by terrorists in an American city, does anybody really think that any government is going to stand by that (possible) treaty?
This is not something like chemical weapons. You could say that the attack with sarin in Tokyo did not destroy the agreement on chemical weapons. But chemical weapons cannot be used for defense, and also they are not really a useful weapon in general. Killer autonomous robots (lets create the obvious KILLAR acronym here and now) are going to be precise, and probably the only way of defense against other KILLARs. Nobody is going to renounce to that.
Also, everything about a KILLAR will be double use. If you think that dual use equipment is a nightmare to control, like it has been in the Iran embargo, just wait until you have to decide if a particular neural network program can be used to detect armed people instead of drowning people. Good luck with that.
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
After a tornado or earthquake, people are sometimes trapped in collapesed buildings. So I invent a robot that can force its way through building walls, by shooting laser beams and by punching holes in the walls. That makes it easier for rescuers to get to victims, right? Therefore it's a peaceful robot, right?
What's to stop me from using this robot in a war, to get to enemy soldiers who are hiding in a bunker?
How do you define "killer robot"? Do you define it as a robot that can only be used to hurt people, not to help people? Just about every invention can be used both for helping and also for hurting people.
They are called cruise missiles.
... given his company already built and sold a killer robot that drove a guy straight into a truck and decapitated him.
Elon Musk knows better than most that his virtue signaling makes no sense and will lead to no consequences. Neither USA, Russia or China will ever consider to abandon their robotic programs. Because these programs help to increase the security of problematic regions (e.g. mountains, swamps, deserts) while saving lives of border guards. Nope, they will find more reasons to keep and extend the program, than to abandon it. But both Russia and China would welcome the decision of USA to stop their robotic defense program. Because, you know, all these Mr.Handys are quite annoying.
The Nash equilibrium of a prisoners' dilemma is that everyone defects. This game isn't exactly a prisoners' dilemma, but the equilibrium is that everyone builds the robots. A ban won't change the nature of the game. It may partly solve it, but not completely.
Political leaders need only tell their constituents that building the robots saves their lives and that the other side will do it even if they don't.
What, there are no civilian dog children? I'm pretty sure I had a non-military puppy once.
Ezekiel 23:20
There's no stopping it until it stops. Then the survivors will picks up the pieces and do it all over again.
Just say no to Deathstars!
I mean, they sometimes ARE autonomous when driving and they HAVE killed people.
If you make killer robots illegal, only criminals will have killer robots! Then, us law-abiding killer robot owners will be at a disadvantage in the streets!
We have such great success in enforcing diesel engine emissions from small passenger cars from well established reputed companies. That gives us some great confidence that the ban can be easily enforced.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Good luck with that Elon. It already is trivial to cobble together "autoturrets" that can lock onto living targets using an Arduino, a modern firearm, a camera, and a few thermal sensors. Want it only to shoot at people hack a bit of facial recognition software. Personally I love the idea of mobile land mines (killer robots) that only kill specific targets rather than indiscriminately murdering anything that happens upon them.
This is about as effective as gun control. Ban killer robots so that only the countries who ignore the ban will have killer robots. You can't uninvent things, sadly. What you can do is try to be strong enough to destroy those who use them against you.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
That's a relief.
I was afraid Elon was going to join the "pro killer robot" faction.
-Styopa
I thought killer robots were a pretty neat idea, but if Elon Musk says they're bad I must have got things wrong somewhere..
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
See Samsung SGR-1. It does require an OK from a human to fire, but really, how hard would it be to bypass that switch? As someone else said, it is trivial to cobble together a system that connects a gun to sensors and have a arduino fire as needed. The Roomba people probably have something that walks with weapons. Sorry Elon, you are way behind the curve on this one.
Let us get a group of people to ban the creation of Ice-Nine.
It might not be such a great idea.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
There's nothing wrong with killer robots (from Venus).
You might disagree, but I think they're A-Ok.
Horizon Zero Dawn with his kids. ;)
Since his cars don't "see" motorcycles, his own autopilot - a car-based, basic robot system - is a killer for fellow users of the road...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Build portable EMP devices, powered by the new Tesla 2170 cells.
#DeleteFacebook
By closing down all postal services worldwide.
#DeleteFacebook
who are calling on the United Nations to ban autonomous weapons.
Wait... Eon.... don't you remember Autopilot? What are you smoking? Your own Tesla products qualify as autonomous weapons.
Because a Car/Vehicle is definitely a weapon if operated by someone drink/incompetent, or operated when a mistake is made, or if something goes wrong mechanically causing a loss of control, or if a malfunction mistakes a pedestrian for a non-obstacle.
Or when your Autopilot fails to recognize a hazard, and the inattentive human collides --- your Autopilot was an autonomous weapon that killed the occupant.
I'm sure future versions of Autopilot will have even more dangers where they could potentially turn a car into a weapon accidentally or intentionally. A perfect autonomous car would be something evil terrorists could tweak, ya know --- Perfectly save autonomous devices can be turned to weapons without the manufacturer's knowledge.
The problem with restricting their use is some countries already have these things in wide use.
For example: Missiles are an autonomous weapon. You program the computer with a guidance system, load up a nuclear warhead, and you can launch and annihilate a target from a continent away.
So what exactly do they want to ban; smarter weapons that specifically target opposing forces or key individuals with lower collateral damage?
Hard-to-detect intelligence weapons that kill small targets with high precision?
Weapons that pick their own targets in the field? Well, the US already has missile/gun systems that pick their own targets in the field to shoot down potential incoming missiles....
Everything you could think to ban is already in use, so somebody's not going to agree to it.
"When killer robots are outlawed, only outlaws will have killer robots!"
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Now I can't decide if I should be working on sexbots or killbots... either way, it will probably lead to the extinction of the human race...
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
I'd say late by a few decades, actually
And you thought the kits to turn dumb bombs into smart bombs, or the standoff conventional weapons systems weren't robots?
Interesting ...
You're soaking in it. don't ask about our stealth drone swarm packs we drop from stealth bombers. you might learn something you apparently don't want to know.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Aren't fully autonomous drones already banned? So this is a no brainer.
People will confuse things, but it's undoubtely a treaty that should be made, much like several others already in place.
This isn't dissimilar to treaties around land mines, chemical weapons, biological warfare and others. Yes, there will be countries that won't adhere to it, killer robots will end up being developed, and we'll have violations of treaties over the years... but this is a call for a coalition against development and deployment of killer robots.
I see a conundrum arising.
NASA has been working on autonomous systems for years. It is hard to control a robot in real time, when there is a delay of minutes to hours inserted into the message loop. Some autonomy greatly improves the ability of probes to gather interesting data.
But, it is not a far leap to move from "Select and drill a rock" to "Select and drill a head".
It is not a far leap from designing a car that will detect and drive in a given lane, to designing a car that will select and drive in a given crowd.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to limit the light of knowledge to a given room.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
As I wrote here and in my sig: http://www.pdfernhout.net/reco... ... ... ..."
"Recognizing irony is key to transcending militarism
Military robots like drones are ironic because they are created essentially to force humans to work like robots in an industrialized social order. Why not just create industrial robots to do the work instead?
Nuclear weapons are ironic because they are about using space age systems to fight over oil and land. Why not just use advanced materials as found in nuclear missiles to make renewable energy sources (like windmills or solar panels) to replace oil, or why not use rocketry to move into space by building space habitats for more land?
Biological weapons like genetically-engineered plagues are ironic because they are about using advanced life-altering biotechnology to fight over which old-fashioned humans get to occupy the planet. Why not just use advanced biotech to let people pick their skin color, or to create living arkologies and agricultural abundance for everyone everywhere?
These militaristic socio-economic ironies would be hilarious if they were not so deadly serious.
Likewise, even United States three-letter agencies like the NSA and the CIA, as well as their foreign counterparts, are becoming ironic institutions in many ways. Despite probably having more computing power per square foot than any other place in the world, they seem not to have thought much about the implications of all that computer power and organized information to transform the world into a place of abundance for all. Cheap computing makes possible just about cheap everything else, as does the ability to make better designs through shared computing.
There is a fundamental mismatch between 21st century reality and 20th century security thinking. Those "security" agencies are using those tools of abundance, cooperation, and sharing mainly from a mindset of scarcity, competition, and secrecy. Given the power of 21st century technology as an amplifier (including as weapons of mass destruction), a scarcity-based approach to using such technology ultimately is just making us all insecure. Such powerful technologies of abundance, designed, organized, and used from a mindset of scarcity could well ironically doom us all whether through military robots, nukes, plagues, propaganda, or whatever else... Or alternatively, as Bucky Fuller and others have suggested, we could use such technologies to build a world that is abundant and secure for all.
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
And neither is AI?
Much as I like XKCD and as much as I respect the intelligence and even sagacity of the artist, he's being flippant and you are sounding naive. Either that or you didn't understand what I wrote but couldn't be bothered to ask for the clarification of whatever confused you.
If you were fishing for a mod point, I doubt I'd give you one, but that's moot since I never get 'em these years, possibly decades.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.