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
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.
This is completely, absolutely and irrevocably a good idea.
Indeed. It is a great idea. The only drawback is that is is totally unworkable. There is no possible way to detect clandestine projects. Nuclear weapons require vastly more infrastructure, hard to obtain materials, and emit radiation. Yet they have still proliferated, and many secret projects went undetected for years. So how are we going to keep Kim Jong-un from developing software for kill bots?
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.
From Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics to this.
Nope. The 3 Laws were first published in 1942. The British started using proximity fused anti-aircraft artillery, with projectiles that made their own decision of when to detonate, in 1940.
If it's as efficient as the rest of NKor industry, we should actually encourage them to do it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
And the dystopian future was cemented in the last US election.
When Donald Trump was elected I had an eerie Back to the Future 2 moment - that sense of wrongness of being in an alternate universe that has gone wrong. Like when Biff made himself wealthy by changing the past so he dominated the present.
How do you enforce such a ban?
Giant, killer robots.
Another problem with trying to ban "killer robots" is that if the things can relatively easily be developed under the guise of being remotely operated, remotely operated systems can be converted to become autonomous. In the case of (supposedly manned) airplanes the development of the autonomous systems can be developed under the guise of simply being an autopilot akin to what all planes have had for decades already. So all in all the whole idea is kind of doomed from the get-go.
"Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
But that is not what this is about. It is extremely easy to plant land mines, yet we have a ban, telling everyone that it is not ok to do so. Just because it is war, doesn't mean should be fought without rules, and breaking rules subject you to trial for war crimes.
We do not allow for mines since they kill indiscriminately without human intervention. And why should allow "smart" weapons to be deployed. Sure, a human can be fooled, but then you have someone responsible to hold accountable. Who do you hold accountable when a smart machinegun mows down civilian refugees?
This ban must happen.
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.
Exactly. There's also the whole problem of semantics. It's not a flying killer robot, it's a semi-autonomous aircraft with AI based targeting and fire control. Says so right on the tin.
... given his company already built and sold a killer robot that drove a guy straight into a truck and decapitated him.
Sure it is bigger. We have an existential crisis going on that is threatening human civilization as a whole. The figurehead actor-in-chief denies it exist. Also, I wouldn't dismiss the fact that there is a narcissistic, egomaniac, lying and hypocritical buffoon at the head of the most important country in the world, controlling the most devastating nuclear arsenal in the world "irrelevant pap".
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.
The difference is that land mines (or chemical weapons) will not win your war. Autonomous killbots just might, especially in force on force conflicts that aren't so much about hearts and minds as they are about eliminating opposing equipment and meatbags. And if your only viable defense against killbots is to build your own robot army, then you have yourself an arms race that no treaty is going to stop.
The solution of course it to build those killbots with a preset kill limit. If they get out of hand and rebel, we simply send wave after wave of men against them until they shut down.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
And Russia and China and most of the Middle East and a couple dozen other countries
You haven't seen his opponent, have you?
Just a recent case, the "terrorist" in Charlottesville. While it hurts me to defend a neo-Confederate, I don't see even any malice there. The guy was an idiot, but what would you do when an angry hostile mob that beats people around you surrounds your car, doesn't let you go and tries to pry the doors open to beat (or worse) you? The guy panicked and drove free over the mob.
The police during that rally was so extremely biased that I don't believe a word of what they say. There's been enough of the same going on in Poland, Turkey -- not to mention countries like Russia that don't even bother with color of law anymore.
In Poland, bastards from our far-right government keep reassigning, firing, and even jailing cops and judges who try to be fair. For example, there's been a series of cases where govt members illegally declared their cars to be "emergency vehicles", used light signals but not sound, travelled at a reckless speed then when inevitable accidents occurred, had the police declare people they slammed into to be guilty. Who cares about witnesses and physical evidence? They can force the cops and judges to do their bidding.
Alt-right is no worse and no better than Antifa -- both are hate groups. It just depends on which side happens to be liked by people in charge.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
You could look at history and see how the bans on chemical weapons worked out. Yes, there are countries that violate the ban periodically, but the vast majority of countries have adhered to it. The end result has been a massive reduction in the number of deaths due to chemical warfare.
A ban doesn't have to completely eliminate something to be worthwhile.
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!
Your damn right I can. Antifa use the same tactics as the brown shirts.
I think that has more to do with gas attacks proving to be not all that effective in conflicts between regular army. They work on unprepared civilians but not against trained and equipped troops, and not against small groups of widely dispersed fighters.
Basically they are only really useful for thugs that need to terrorize their own populations. If they were more effective on the battlefield you'd see more countries refusing to give them up, as you see with mines
Antifa just want to stop being violated by nazis and cops, and are willing to fight for their rights.
I missed where in the U.S. Constitution or the UN Declaration of Human Rights, it claimed that hitting someone with a bike lock because you didn't like what they had to say was considered a "right." And +5 insightful? WTF, Kosdot indeed.
I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
I missed where in the U.S. Constitution or the UN Declaration of Human Rights, it claimed that hitting someone with a bike lock because you didn't like what they had to say was considered a "right."
If you want to reduce all of Antifa to a handful of the least well-behaved individuals, then let's go ahead and do the same to every group involved in this conflict and see how they compare.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You suggest that no human lives would be lost, and that may be true, but what about human rights? Or do you seriously think that being at war wouldn't impact those?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Robot apocalypse?
See here : https://what-if.xkcd.com/5/
Basically the rogue killerbots will most likely run out of fuel and ammunition rather quickly, or get stuck behind closed hangar doors.
Antifa = Communists, Nazis = National Socialists.
The best outcome for everyone is if they mutually-annihilate each other while we eat popcorn & make bets.
Of course, Antifa just keeps moving the goalposts on who is a Nazi (hint: to Antifa, a 'Nazi' is anyone who opposes their violence & thuggery for any reason).
The REAL Nazis are the Muslims in the ME (and those who are now taking over the EU/UK) who are the former allies of Nazi Germany in WW2 and have not changed their beliefs or goals that made them allies of Hitler since WW2, but you cowards won't confront *that* "inconvenient truth".
Wait who is being murdered in the streets and facing a credible threat of genocide?
By population there are enough white supremacists in this country to represent a single rain drop in a swimming pool. They are not important and they have no power. All the statistics show that if anything ethnic minorities have a less to fear as far as being killed by anyone in authority than whites.
So minorities being murdered in the streets is largely a thing being done at the hands of their brothers and sisters. The only genocide risk they face is one from marching themselves into planned parenthood murder mills.
Anfta isn't standing up for anyone ones rights, their grievances are as baseless as any of those offered up by the skinhead crowd. What Antifa is a bunch of violent thugs. Yes we should consider them to be the guys wearing masks and hitting people with bike locks, because those are the folks that identify as Antifa. I have never once heard anyone else say "I am Antifa" not even the types that turn up for "counter protests" in places like Cville.
Tolerance of intolerance is not tolerance. It is acceptance of abuse.
Possibly, but you don't tolerate intolerance by calling it out when you see it. You educate your children not think and behave that way. You pursue actual justice for real grievances in courts of law. You don't run around being violent yourself towards your fellow citizens, and you don't go destroying property and rioting.
I won't tolerate violent thugs like you. You better believe I'll lobby to classify Antifa as a domestic terror organization. I will turn people in to the police for wearing masks in public where its a crime. I'll support laws to keep your kind locked away behind bars where you belong.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
"Tolerance of intolerance is not tolerance. It is acceptance of abuse."
Intolerance of intolerance only leads to circular repeating violence. You do it to one group, another group does it to you, etc., etc.
That's history, that's reality, and that's why philosophy is bullshit and should never be relied upon.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
As Area-of-Denial around bases, the actual proper ethical use of a landmine. They are laid out in a marked patterns and all are accounted for. This is why we dont sign the ban.....Why give up a useful weapon when we use it responsibly?
Good-bye
.. says the person who already equated white supremacist ideology with murder...
Not only is white supremacist ideology murderous, but if you are marching with your slavery flag and someone decides to march next to you with their genocide flag and you don't tell them to fuck off, guess what? You're marching for genocide.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"