Slashdot Mirror


DeepMind, Elon Musk and Others Pledge Not To Make Autonomous AI Weapons (engadget.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Engadget: Yesterday, during the Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, the Future of Life Institute announced that more than 2,400 individuals and 160 companies and organizations have signed a pledge, declaring that they will "neither participate in nor support the development, manufacture, trade or use of lethal autonomous weapons." The signatories, representing 90 countries, also call on governments to pass laws against such weapons. Google DeepMind and the Xprize Foundation are among the groups who've signed on while Elon Musk and DeepMind co-founders Demis Hassabis, Shane Legg and Mustafa Suleyman have made the pledge as well.

"Thousands of AI researchers agree that by removing the risk, attributability and difficulty of taking human lives, lethal autonomous weapons could become powerful instruments of violence and oppression, especially when linked to surveillance and data systems," says the pledge. It adds that those who sign agree that "the decision to take a human life should never be delegated to a machine."
"I'm excited to see AI leaders shifting from talk to action, implementing a policy that politicians have thus far failed to put into effect," Future of Life Institute President Max Tegmark said in a statement. "AI has huge potential to help the world -- if we stigmatize and prevent its abuse. AI weapons that autonomously decide to kill people are as disgusting and destabilizing as bioweapons, and should be dealt with in the same way."

61 of 122 comments (clear)

  1. IMHO by DaMattster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The pledge is not worth the paper its printed on. Believe me, once Elon sees a way to make a shit load of money through AI-based weaponry, he'll take action.

    1. Re:IMHO by Noishkel · · Score: 1, Troll

      You do realize that the Obama administration used drones about 10 times as much as Bush did, right? No side of the political isle gives a damn about how this tech gets used. https://www.nytimes.com/roomfo...

    2. Re:IMHO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Doesn't mean shit. Show me how many bombs dropped and missiles files overall. More drone use just represents the advancement of technology not any escalation of conflict.

    3. Re:IMHO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      your boy bush used infinitely more drones than carter did. hmmm. use of a new tech increased over time. imagine the fuck out of that one.

      and it doesn't matter if musk and a few others vow not to make totally autonomous weapons.. someone else will.

    4. Re:IMHO by Noishkel · · Score: 1

      Not sure yet. For some crazy reasons no one want's to make that data easily searchable. But so far most MSM sources say that Obama dropped about twice as much ordnance as Bush. But that's mostly because he focused more on air strike sand less on occupation with ground forces as Bush did.

    5. Re:IMHO by Krishnoid · · Score: 2

      Seriously. I had hope when they said DeepMind took the pledge, but it was just the creators. Just let us know when our autonomous AI overlords themselves pledge to not make autonomous AI weaponry. Do any other promises really count?

    6. Re:IMHO by butzwonker · · Score: 1

      There is a civilian volunteer website that records this data with fairly strict methodology. What can be said is that Obama vastly expanded drone strikes in Pakistan, but it seems that the drone strikes in other regions (mostly Afghanistan, some in Yemen and Somalia) remained more constant. The data is from civilian sources, every datum is confirmed by at least two independent news media. The data is expressed with lower and upper boundaries on the basis of the reports. (It's very common for reports in news media to first report much lower casualties at the early hours of reporting, since many casualties are only known later.) Here is some typical data without alleged combatants killed:


      2017 Afghanistan
      civilians killed 13-149
      children killed: 2-27
      reported injuries: 147-295

      2016 Afghanistan
      civilians killed: 65-105
      children killed: 3-7
      reported injuries: 196-243

      2015 Afghanistan
      civilians killed: 60-77
      children killed: 3-16
      reported injuries: 142-147

      If you take a closer look at the website and datasets you'll find that Obama expanded the drone program and the number of killed civilians, including children, certainly didn't decrease during his time. Overall it seems to me that not to much can be read off from the concrete numbers, though, since there is a lot of randomness involved. Maybe a statistician can take a look at the data sets and tell us more. Anyway, take a look yourself. Conclusion: Whatever you think about US party politics, Obama is definitely not worthy of the Nobel Peace price. I'd personally rather award him the nobel piece of shit price (and also award this price to Trump, for other reasons).

    7. Re:IMHO by MrL0G1C · · Score: 1

      Indeed, how do I know Deep Mind isn't prone to lying and is plotting to take control of Earth already!

      TBH I think an advanced intelligence would see the stupidity of war.

      --
      Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    8. Re:IMHO by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 1

      The problem is arms race. Nobody will be able to prevent the Chinese from developing militarized AI, so everyone else will have to follow through.

    9. Re:IMHO by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Nobody can stop the US military from doing it either.

      Training AI isn't like building stealth bombers. The technology is all public and, while it does help to have some skill in the field, it's not that difficult to become passably competent.

    10. Re:IMHO by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      and google did no evil and thus it came to pass :p

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
  2. Re:That's fine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Including mine. I'll make two separate devices. One is an AI logic unit that can track threats in real time and determine the optimal kill shot. This device will have an expansion port that receives the data but is unused.

    I will also make a fully electronic machine cannon that is fucking deadly and controlled by a human remotely with a joystick or some other type of digital control mechanism. This device will also have an expansion port that will allow control to be received via it as well.

    I can't help it if someone clever realizes that if you run a USB cable between the two, it's a neat hack that allows it to function as an autonomous AI killbot.

  3. One. by SoulMaster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All it takes is one.

    -SM

    1. Re:One. by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      But two should cancel each other out (unless they're from the same side).

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  4. Unless... by Luthair · · Score: 3, Insightful

    someone calls him out on twitter. /rimshot

  5. Confused by dohzer · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I'm confused. Didn't Elon fall off everyone's carelist after his twitter gaf the other day?

    1. Re:Confused by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 2

      I'm confused. Didn't Elon fall off everyone's carelist after his twitter gaf the other day?

      You would completely disregard a person in all venues because they said a mean thing on Twitter? Allowing your feelings to blind you is a weakness.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    2. Re:Confused by dohzer · · Score: 1

      Yes.
      And as for the unrelated comment after the question, yes it is. I agree.

  6. In other words. . . by quonset · · Score: 1

    No Terminators or mobile dolls, but Gundams are okay.

  7. They'll just sell the software. by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

    Then they won't have *made* them, since, you know, they didn't install the stuff themselves.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  8. DARPA doesn't care about your virtue signalling by Noishkel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    While obviously big players in AI would be able to help develop military AI way faster than without them the hard reality is that this technology already in the wild. And as long as there's a federal government there's going to be corporations mercenary enough to peruse this technology. And this doesn't even take into account the programs of other nation's militaries.

    Of course you might have some motion on international agreements on the use of military AI. But much like nuclear weapons there's no feasible way to truly put the proverbial genie back in the bottle. And that's even before we start talking about the idea of rouge actors. That 'SlaughterBot' video that Elon Musk helped fund was overly hyperbolic bullshit. But that doesn't mean they'll never be a group that doesn't come up with autonomous weapons.

    1. Re:DARPA doesn't care about your virtue signalling by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      That 'SlaughterBot' video that Elon Musk helped fund was overly hyperbolic bullshit.

      How do you figure? A simple ASIC could make a database of millions of people easily searchable in real time with low power consumption. I think the least realistic part was the requirement to actually get close to you when a simple bullet could do all same damage at a greater range without destroying it which would enable multiple rounds to be on a single quadcopter.

      If you are going to commit genocide then the SlaughterBot idea seems to be quite close to how a small group of people could realistically achieve it with no danger to themselves.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    2. Re:DARPA doesn't care about your virtue signalling by Noishkel · · Score: 1

      Well I'll certain admit there's potential for some person or group of actors using a swarm of autonomous or semi autonomous drones for an attack like shown in the video there's a number of real serious problems with trying to control that many drones in the ways they're depicted. First off the larger carrier drones themselves didn't look to be much bigger than an off the shelf quadro or multicopter drone. That's not a lot of space or weight for the kind of pretty significant computer power you would need to coordination and fly that drone swarm towards a target. The system depicted seem to suggest that the terrorist running it were able to launch the device at some significant distance. And I'd also notice that the carrier drone seemed to explode once it got near the target to cut a hole in the roof to let the smaller drones in so that kind of negates the idea of some sort of mesh network to distribute the needed processing power. And as for the mini drones themselves, well you have some of the same technological limitations, but even worse. Especially with the idea that they're going to be lock onto a target and kill it with a precise shot to the head. Not to mention keeping these drones coordinated enough to not end up having multiple drones accidentally all trying to take the same target.

    3. Re:DARPA doesn't care about your virtue signalling by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      This is the reason why the USA wins and why it has DARPA.
      When politics gets in the way of what the USA needs to win, the USA now has DARPA.
      Make its own.
      Find brands that have skills and the best workers to make what is needed.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    4. Re:DARPA doesn't care about your virtue signalling by neoRUR · · Score: 1

      Yes, this is all nice in principle, but a joke otherwise. DARPA and the military have been funding the research and development of AI and many other advancements since it started. Where do you think all the AI technology that Google and the self driving cars came from? Yes DARPA/ARPA.
      And there will always be large industrial military complex companies that will gladly take on those mega billion $ contracts to make AI weapons of all sorts.
      And the thing is, you can't stop it, you can't stop technology and you can't stop innovation.

      But were do you draw the line? Are automated AI police forces ok then? Are automated AI cyber security bots ok? AI Guard dogs and automated security fences with lethal enforcement? AI automated UN troops?

      See, you can't really say no without saying yes to something else.

  9. That's OK. by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    The government will easily find someone who WILL take their money. There's plenty of actual defense contractors out there.

    1. Re:That's OK. by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that and the companies who don't want to do "military applications" can just do pure research. Pure, ivory-tower research... which the DoD can just pay someone else to integrate into an actual weapon system. It's not like a machine learning algorithm knows or cares to what use it's put, once it is out there.

      Dumb posturing; I also wonder if these people have considered what a world dominated by Chinese and Russian military AI will look like, and what effect it would have... I am not sure it would be the best of all possible worlds, exactly.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  10. I do not care about who's killed, if I make money by SysEngineer · · Score: 1

    I have been so fucked by the system and my disability that money is the only thing that is important in this world. I have a patent that every browser is infringing upon, but I do not have the money to fight for it and I lost it due to judicial abuse, so I have been chronic homeless and unemployed. I have already used openCV to create a facial recognition system that can target a person and use remote controlled devices.

    When Injustice is LAW
    Revolution is necessary

  11. Re:That's fine by Narcocide · · Score: 1

    LOL yea just wait until Uber takes a crack at this.

  12. Putin Pledges to Make Autonomous AI Weapons by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Putin says the nation that leads in AI 'will be the ruler of the world'

    How about we at least look into some ways to defend against this?

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
    1. Re:Putin Pledges to Make Autonomous AI Weapons by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      How about we at least look into some ways to defend against this?

      That would require throwing the political party that is current in power, out of power and literally the only thing they care about is staying in power. To make things worse, they are about 40% of the nation and hate the rest of us for being "coastal elites".

      Frankly, we deserve what we're getting about now.

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    2. Re:Putin Pledges to Make Autonomous AI Weapons by EETech1 · · Score: 1

      Good thing the people programming them will not be any of the experts!

      That makes me feel safe...

    3. Re:Putin Pledges to Make Autonomous AI Weapons by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      Until that nation's AI takes over as ruler of the world, that is.

  13. So someone else will by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

    They probably mean well, but we all know where it's headed and it will get there with or without them.

  14. They should be working on countermeasures.

    It's going to be done ... so the smart guys should be figuring out how to fight it.

  15. God Dammit Elon, you are smarter than this.... by TiggertheMad · · Score: 2

    AI weapons that autonomously decide to kill people are as disgusting and destabilizing as bioweapons,

    Weapons that indiscriminately kill people are are terrible, and only made by the most deplorable, and dispic- wait, I go lost there, was I ranting about multi-stage boosted yield MIRV thermonuclear weapons, or robots with glocks?

    I mean, lets put this in perspective here. We spent half of the last century trying to figure out more ways of incinerating major cities more efficiently, and a few assholes are worried that we are going to build the robot from short circuit?

    GET YOUR FUCKING PRIORITIES STRAIGHT, IDIOTS!

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    1. Re:God Dammit Elon, you are smarter than this.... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The issue is that things like nuclear weapons and glocks require human intervention to launch a deadly attack, where as AI may be making that decision on its own. Even if AI doesn't make the final decision, it may influence the humans making decisions somehow. As we have seen it's bad enough with remote drones.

      It's also vastly easier to teach an AI to shoot at anything human shaped in a given area than it is to teach it to recognize civilians or differentiate a gun from a farming tool.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:God Dammit Elon, you are smarter than this.... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Sentry guns are the alternative to other deadly traps, like land mines. But they are much easier to remove. Of course they don't require any AI either, UNLESS you are trying to teach them not to murder civilians.

      We already have autonomous weapons.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  16. Does anybody care by Codeyman · · Score: 1

    With AI based image recognition libraries commoditized and made incredibly easy to use, why would anyone want these guys specifically to make weapons. Anyone can make them.

  17. Re:Damnit by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 1

    I would RATHER send a damned robot in to face hostiles than one of my KIDS. Killer robots are a GOOD thing. They will result in a NET REDUCTION in hostilities. People don't pick fights they know they can't win!

    Fighters on the receiving end also have kids. Or even are kids (fighters & civilians). Why would their deaths be any less bad than you or your kids' ? Just because they happen to be on the other side of the fence?

    That's why perhaps AI powered autonomous weapons should be banned all together, and their use considered a war crime. Simply because they may make it too easy to pull the trigger.

    Killing people wholesale should be hard, period. Looking the person on the receiving end in the eye, and not able to pull the trigger? Then why kill 'em from 50 km's away using a push button? Apart from the mechanics it's the same thing right?

    And yes people are fighting even when it seems they can't win. Like when they feel they have no other option (like resist/fight or be killed anyway like sheep in a massacre). Fight an enemy that hates them just for the religion they practice. Or that's taking land their ancestors have lived on like.. forever. Plenty good reasons possible even if the fight appears hopeless.

  18. Waaaaaay too late. by gordguide · · Score: 2

    Crude forms (as in old technology by modern standards, not as in "ineffective") of AI are already in use, and not just recently either.

    The last version of the Canadian frigates (first one hit the water in 1990), which are already being replaced with a newer version, used a set of in-house designed operating systems with triple redundancy (three specific OSes, each of which can operate the ship alone, and three independent networks, etc each of which can operate the ship alone). Although the details are not made public, rumour has it that they are various flavours of UNIX.

    One feature of the ship is it can track and target threats (air, sea and subsea) and fire when all personnel are no longer physically capable of operating the ship. As in dead.

    Most navies have built similar (and newer) ships since, with technology that operates the same way (including the US, UK, etc).

    Sounds like an AI weapon system to me.

    1. Re:Waaaaaay too late. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a very odd design if true.

      What is the threat model for needing three redundant control systems? Are they worried about hacking or viruses, in which case why did they connect it to the internet or even have writeable media for storage? And three networks... Well, okay, the networks might get damaged by enemy fire, the usual way you deal with that is to have separate, self contained systems in different parts of the ship and operators you can contact via phone or radio and who are fairly antonymous anyway.

      Then there is this full-auto mode. Firstly, the friend or foe identification system better be amazing or you will end up with a drifting, abandoned frigate that shoots at anything in range. And by the time everyone on board is either dead or gone, the ship must be in such a state as to be next to useless anyway.

      Modern naval planning tends to assume that once the ship is hit then it's probably out of the fight. The focus is on not getting hit, not having some crazy AI carry on fighting afterwards. Aside from anything there would be a very real risk of it attacking any friendly ships that came to rescue the crew.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Waaaaaay too late. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

      Not so odd. Triple redundancy isn't unusual in critical applications, especially ones where you expect pieces might get blown off.

      Automated combat systems are also quite common, particularly on naval missile cruisers. Usually you use them in "officer says kill this target" mode, but they have various levels of automation. US carrier escort vessels are designed to deal with thousands of incoming missiles from mass Soviet air attacks. Far too many for the crew to deal with manually.

    3. Re:Waaaaaay too late. by gordguide · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a very odd design if true.

      What is the threat model for needing three redundant control systems? Are they worried about hacking or viruses, in which case why did they connect it to the internet or even have writeable media for storage? And three networks... Well, okay, the networks might get damaged by enemy fire, the usual way you deal with that is to have separate, self contained systems in different parts of the ship and operators you can contact via phone or radio and who are fairly antonymous anyway.

      Then there is this full-auto mode. Firstly, the friend or foe identification system better be amazing or you will end up with a drifting, abandoned frigate that shoots at anything in range. And by the time everyone on board is either dead or gone, the ship must be in such a state as to be next to useless anyway.

      Modern naval planning tends to assume that once the ship is hit then it's probably out of the fight. The focus is on not getting hit, not having some crazy AI carry on fighting afterwards. Aside from anything there would be a very real risk of it attacking any friendly ships that came to rescue the crew.

      I never said "it was connected to the internet"

      Yes, the mainframes are located at three separate areas of the ship.

      The use of different OSes is a tampering reduction feature.

      NATO nations know who the friendlies and the non-aligned military assets, including rogue actors, that are around them. Threat management is determined by the action of other assets ... is that a fighter jet profile heading towards you? Area of detection for aircraft is classified but known to be near 100 miles (for example). Again the actual number of threats that can be monitored simultaneously is classified, but it is known to be "more than 20". And without some form of AI, your fear is justified; with it, maybe not so much.

      Further to interoperability with friendlies, Canadian Frigates of this class have spent deployments as part of USN Carrier Task Force(s) in carrier protection role, both as part of threat war games and as full extended deployment.

      No other nations have ever (or since) been allowed to participate in that role. By all accounts it performed admirably, being notable for being the only asset that detected and simulated destruction of diesel electric submarine infiltration in at least one exercise. The US began and has now completed a Frigate class program that was in part established due to the performance of the RCN vessel in that role.

      Top speed is also classified, but is "more than 30 knots". The ship can, from a standing start, come up to full speed and to a full stop in less than it's length.

      So, it's trusted by allies and it works.

    4. Re:Waaaaaay too late. by gordguide · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a very odd design if true.

      What is the threat model for needing three redundant control systems? Are they worried about hacking or viruses, in which case why did they connect it to the internet or even have writeable media for storage? And three networks... Well, okay, the networks might get damaged by enemy fire, the usual way you deal with that is to have separate, self contained systems in different parts of the ship and operators you can contact via phone or radio and who are fairly antonymous anyway.

      Then there is this full-auto mode. Firstly, the friend or foe identification system better be amazing or you will end up with a drifting, abandoned frigate that shoots at anything in range. And by the time everyone on board is either dead or gone, the ship must be in such a state as to be next to useless anyway.

      Modern naval planning tends to assume that once the ship is hit then it's probably out of the fight. The focus is on not getting hit, not having some crazy AI carry on fighting afterwards. Aside from anything there would be a very real risk of it attacking any friendly ships that came to rescue the crew.

      Your idea of naval warfare is pretty much an 1980's and earlier situation. The phalanx naval defence system, for example, only fires on close encounter threats, and is fully automated tracking and fire. It IS coming at you. All modern aircraft use IFF (identify friend or foe) AI. And so on. Obviously voice communication is still used extensively in warfare, but ship systems can be set to automated response, with or without human interaction. And note that this particular class of vessel is being replaced; the example I gave is one of aging assets. Anything newer will be far more automated.

  19. China thanks competitors for dropping out by Luckyo · · Score: 2

    Literally, look at the topic. At this point, if you're not working on weapons, you're just setting yourself up to lose the future war, where competitors will not be so internally weak minded as to not research useful tools for warfare.

    As it has always been in human history. Decadent empires starting to think they can afford to not match upcoming adversaries is one of the key steps on the path to collapse of said decadent empires.

  20. Shit. This can only mean one thing... by Hallux-F-Sinister · · Score: 2

    You realize, of course, that this means they are already making them. God damn it. See... This is why we can t have nice things. I would love if this were true, if I could believe these people. I would also love a big piece of double chocolate fudge cake, but that s not on the table either, nor is it likely to be. Figures this would be how it ends. Whatever evolves in the next few hundred million years to replace us, would be well advised not to do stupid shit like we did, but the same evolutionary forces that formed us will form them, and they will, given enough time, do the exact same thing.

    It is, I firmly believe, not a unique thing endemic to humans, but rather it is a function of the forces that brought us about. The single, thin, feeble ray of light glimmering in all this gloom and impending doom is this: I think I just solved Fermi s Paradox. This is why we here are not inundated with visitors from other planets. Because shortly after a species develops intelligence, it develops science and technology, and shortly thereafter, its natural inclinations towards individual survival at the expense of others drives them to create increasingly intricate and sophisticated and powerful weapons, and you can only have those for so long, and in such abundance, and so widely proliferated, before someone does something earth-shatteringly fucking stupid with one, and all else follows unavoidably from that error.

    Case in point: by rights, humanity should have ended at the Cuban Missile Crisis. We, as a species, lucked out there. Ever since we have all collectively been living on borrowed time. Inasmuch as it seems that with each passing year, there get to be more ways for all of us to die, as a species, more individuals who can have a bad day and, or can go nuts and, or who can just get really bored and... kill everyone on Earth, it becomes increasingly apparent that the odds of seeing another year get smaller with each passing year. This is simply how probability works. You can back out of a driveway into traffic without looking and get away with it if there doesnâ(TM)t happen to be someone trying to occupy the space you are trying to back into, at that moment or immediately thereafter, but I would not count on being able to pull such a stunt repeatedly. It eventually catches up with you and I am frankly surprised it has not caught up with humanity yet. But hey, climate change... if killer robots fail to wipe us out, there is always everyone starving to death as we further and further outstrip the natural carrying capacity of the planet, (see Malthus, Thomas,) and become more and more ludicrously dependent on technology to manage to keep us all fat and happy, when it all comes tumbling down... it is going to get horrifically ugly.

    You have my permission, therefore, to get drunk now. I know I m going to.

    --
    Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
  21. Re:Human by wolfheart111 · · Score: 1

    Ya so he's human after all.. a little disappointed.

    --
    [($)]
  22. Re:I promise by MrKaos · · Score: 1

    I won't cum in your mouth - I swear, I won't.

    It's an analogy.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  23. And yet... by Nicholas+Schumacher · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They are still working on automated vehicles. Doesn't anyone think about how easy it would be to turn an automated vehicle into a weapon?

    Put a bomb in the trunk, use the automated vehicle to get it to the target, and a cell phone to track/detonate the bomb when it gets there...

    And any image recognition system, once advanced enough, can be easily adapted to a targeting system.

    Even if they don't want weapons, the technology they do continue to work on will sooner or later make it's way into weapons.

    The only question is who will have access to them first.

    --
    -Nick
    My name is Obi-Wan Kenobi. You killed my master. Prepare to die.
    1. Re:And yet... by theCat · · Score: 1

      Autonomous vehicles. To which you can already marry any of the open-sourced machine learning/AI frameworks. To which you can include any of the open-source face recognition frameworks. To which you can bolt any number of off-the-shelf AR-15s. To which you can add your own 3D-printed ammunition feeder connected to a 3D-printer continuous belt of off-the-shelf 7mm rounds.

      So for the cost of a '65 Mustang, some HP servers and a trip to Walmart for the weapons and ammo, just about anyone (least of all a nation with a defense budget) could roll a roving hunter/killer that could murder its way across just about any urban landscape, until it ran out of bullets or gas. I'd put the cost at about $10k each, cheaper at scale.

      I'm reasonably certain something just like this is already in testing.

      --
      =^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
  24. Re:Damnit by dromgodis · · Score: 1

    Killer robots are a GOOD thing. They will result in a NET REDUCTION in hostilities. People don't pick fights they know they can't win!

    $TERRORIST_ORGANISATION or $STATE_WITH_A_LEADER_WITH_A_SMALL_PENIS creates 1M AI killer robots and unleashes them on the US with the aim of killing everyone.

    Still a GOOD thing?

  25. If that's a really really efficient weapon by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

    It will be created, at least secretly.

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  26. Musk by Daralantan · · Score: 1

    Good. Now we don't have to worry about sentient flamethrowers!

  27. You've got to teach it phenomenology by Mittengrabber · · Score: 1

    For those of you who have never seen Dark Star: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

  28. Re:Shit. This can only mean one thing... by jockeys · · Score: 1
    --

    In Soviet Russia jokes are formulaic and decidedly non-humorous.
  29. Hurrah for humanity! by SpaghettiPattern · · Score: 1

    Now where can we apply for jobs?

    --

    I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
  30. Ummm? by wolff000 · · Score: 1

    So it is ok to send teenagers off to war but sending in a robot is somehow not ethical? Maybe these people are not as smart as they think they are.

    --
    WTF?
  31. Foolish Action by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    I am all for automatic, lethal weapons. Instead of having soldiers stationed in awful places either frying in the heat and bugs or having feet so frozen that amputation is the only option we can st up superior killing machines that are stealthy and powerful turning a battlefield into a peaceful area. Prison systems could have very effective devices that make escape impossible as well. There are so many benefits that I can not list them. By the way Trump has confessed to being a witch. He has said all along that is current woes are a witch hunt and that makes him the witch.

  32. That sounds exactly what an AI would instruct... by tokengeekgrrl · · Score: 1

    ...someone to say in order to protect its existence. ;)

    For more information, see this movie: https://www.rottentomatoes.com...

  33. Vocabulary expansion (was:IMHO) by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

    Whataboutism.

    I'm so glad we have a word for it.

    --
    There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.