Killer Robots Would Be 'Dangerously Destabilizing' Force in the World, Tech Leaders Warn (washingtonpost.com)

Thousands of artificial intelligence experts are calling on governments to take preemptive action before it's too late. The list is extensive and includes some of the most influential names in the overlapping worlds of technology, science and academia. From a report: Among them are billionaire inventor and OpenAI founder Elon Musk, Skype co-founder Jaan Tallinn, artificial intelligence researcher Stuart Russell, as well as the three founders of Google DeepMind -- the company's premier machine learning research group. In total, more than 160 organizations and 2,460 individuals from 90 countries promised this week to not participate in or support the development and use of lethal autonomous weapons. The pledge says artificial intelligence is expected to play an increasing role in military systems and calls upon governments and politicians to introduce laws regulating such weapons "to create a future with strong international norms."

"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," the pledge says. "Moreover, lethal autonomous weapons have characteristics quite different from nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and the unilateral actions of a single group could too easily spark an arms race that the international community lacks the technical tools and global governance systems to manage," the pledge adds.

Comments

Structure it like the international mine treaty

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> introduce laws...with strong international norms

Why not structure it like the international mine treaty? You know, the one that pretty much everyone except the USA has agreed to.

(rolls eyes at idea that Russians/Chinese won't use AI-augmented weapons to their full advantage)

Re:Structure it like the international mine treaty

[Anonymous Coward]

cyka blyat, provide proofs !!

(you are on Slashdot, where, like Reddit, Russian shitposters come to defend their interests, and of course Trump's)

Re:Structure it like the international mine treaty

[PopeRatzo]

(rolls eyes at idea that Russians/Chinese won't use AI-augmented weapons to their full advantage)

They won't have to.

Re:Structure it like the international mine treaty

[FeelGood314]

It's different. Someone in control of the area laid the mine. You can mostly figure out who laid the mines and I can't easily surprise you with a mine field and let someone else take the blame. A very small autonomous drone equipped with a nerve agent could easily assassinate any world leader and tracing the attack back with 100% certainty to a state actor would be almost impossible.

Re:Structure it like the international mine treaty

[Anonymous Coward]

The Korean DMZ is the reason why the US isn't on board with the mine treaty, other than that the US is fully complaint. Civilians aren't going to accidentally wander through it. Quite frankly the mine are no where near the most dangerous thing in the area.

Re:Structure it like the international mine treaty

[Dread_ed]

Do it quietly, but please do it.

Some people think that robotics are the solution to the problem of work; that the ascendance of adaptable machines under the control of human direction will usher in an age of previously impossible prosperity for the world. Some think we will all benefit, like a rising tide lifts all boats.

I get the feeling that once the means of production are securely in the hands of a self-sustaining robotic ecosystem, the proletariat, as a whole, will finally be seen by the elites to be as expendable as they already see each of us individually. A rising tide lifts all boats, yes...but what if you can't afford a boat...or worse, if you are chained to a machine.

TL;DR: Some people think the ruling class/elites will eventually move to another planet. Why would they do that when this one is already so nice? They could just have autonomous robots kill everyone they don't absolutely need. Once they are done its just a change of programming and a few attachments to beat the "sword robots" into "plowshare robots."

There's only two options I can think of to head off this kind of Carter catastrophie. One requires the 99% pre-preemptively striking down the 1%, their sycophants, all of their children, and anyone who could take their place. That ultimate expression of schadenfreude aside, the other solution that presents itself would be akin to the Claws of Grendel, i.e turning the tools of your tormentor into your salvation...through Personal Robotics.

Yes please, sign me up.

Re:Structure it like the international mine treaty

[ChoosyBeggar]

What makes you think the wealthy would see any need, once full automation is achieved, to destroy to working class? Let's dig a bit deeper.

Re:Structure it like the international mine treaty

[Dread_ed]

There are plenty of answers to that question, but that's not the question that bothers me. The question that you aren't asking is the one I answered with my conclusion. Namely, "Why keep them (us!) around if the purpose they have served is more efficiently accomplished by infinitely obedient automatons?"

That is the question that needs answering. The line of logic leading toward asking that question in the first place is almost inevitable. Overpopulation, ecological damage, environmental changes, political unrest, climate change, pathogenic mutation, destruction of the food chain; all point toward a "better future" if there just weren't so many damn humans around stressing the system to the breaking point.

I sure hope that when we get to that point someone comes up with a really good answer. I think we will need it.

Re:Structure it like the international mine treaty

[wyHunter]

Exactly. OTOH despite decades of banning biological weapons development, the USSR engaged in a lot of research and building of them - despite the inspections etc. that were done by NATO teams. And yes, USSR teams inspected NATO as well.

Uhm

[Aighearach]

Do these dummies have any idea that the words they're saying are not going to discourage anybody making decisions, but simply encourage them to increase investments?!

If that is the goal, they could also probably do it honestly by talking about the benefits.

If you use a word like "disrupt" or "destabilizing" to an average person on the street, they might think the word sounds bad, but people who dream of ruling the world don't feel the same way about these words.

Re: Uhm

[Anonymous Coward]

As a regular citizen I want my government to take action and have such systems if that really gives us advantage. It's the job of my government to get into the best position to defend the country, so such systems are in fact mandatory.
Plus, these guys are weasel wording it. They are only saying they won't work on legal systems. So they are free to work on a maiming system where your chance of survival after a week is 50% and if you do you are missing limbs or have deformations for the rest of your life. These guys are just posturing and opening their mouths to make wind.

Re:Uhm

[BlueStrat]

Do these dummies have any idea that the words they're saying are not going to discourage anybody making decisions, but simply encourage them to increase investments?!

If that is the goal, they could also probably do it honestly by talking about the benefits.

If you use a word like "disrupt" or "destabilizing" to an average person on the street, they might think the word sounds bad, but people who dream of ruling the world don't feel the same way about these words.

Just a snippet of my stream of thought, here. Just some random thoughts, not saying I believe or disbelieve anything, simply some fanciful "what if?".

Could Biblical descriptions of Armageddon and the protagonists actually be foretelling the crescendo of an apocalyptic war between the two most powerful super-AIs rather than nation-states as has traditionally been thought? Gog and Magog as warring super-AIs? A warning from the distant past, possibly because it's happened before?

Discuss! :)

Strat

Re:Uhm

[Aighearach]

Darmok and Jalad, at Tanagra.

Obviously.

Re: Uhm

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets say that your government decides that elections are no longer needed and everyone who opposes is killed on site. They also think you should go into a coal mine and get some coal to the government. You want to fight back but the moment you stop working, autonomous machine kills you. This is just one scenario where you might change the way you think.

Re:Uhm

[Areyoukiddingme]

Darmok and Jalad, at Tanagra.

This is what happens when you let English majors try to write science fiction. A warp-capable civilization whose language is based on folklore and metaphor? Absurd to the point of stupidity. One of the more pathetic attempts to justify the writer's own feeble existence. You can't do engineering with memes.

(I now wait for Slashdot to attempt it.)

Also, obligatory XKCD.

Re:Uhm

[Aighearach]

Yeah, your comment is what happens when you let computer nerds talk about storytelling, though.

So they could easily have done worse.

Re:Uhm

[drinkypoo]

I'm with you. That was one of the weakest scripts in Star trek history. If not for a spectacular performance by Patrick Stewart, that's how it would be remembered.

Re:Uhm

[Alypius]

Alien astronaut theorists say "yes."

Re: Uhm

[Anonymous Coward]

We can stay in the Star trek Universe and also get back on point. How about TOS "The Doomsday Machine" or maybe "The Ultimate Computer"? Technology that kills it's creators.

Or maybe SkyNet?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Doomsday_Machine_(Star_Trek:_The_Original_Series)?wprov=sfti1

Re: Uhm

[Anonymous Coward]

That STTNG episode is no sillier than the idea of a modern society relying on a few thousand picto/ideograms to convey technical details to each other instead of an alphabet based written system. AKA, wtf is the manual in Chinese?

Re: Uhm

[KingBenny]

they're using lasers ? Mister Worf, beam a foton torpedo onto their bridge can be there a more relevant topic to waste hours of million dollar tax money discussions on ? killer robots ? LOL .. too much pacific rim ? evangelion maybe ? at current state those things would be so slow even when they're not bumping into walls or attacking people with t-shirts with a face on it of charlie manson the impact would be quite negligible ... i'll take five of your american jarheads in full gear against 20 of your killer robots, let the games begin

Re:Uhm

[cas2000]

No. Biblical descriptions of Armageddon are bullshit stories by some guy who ate too many magic mushrooms on Patmos.

Making references to Armageddon is the crackpot's argument from authority. Doesn't matter how insane the Bible is, there's enough other cretins who value it that it bolsters many lunatic arguments.

what about an no nuke back? but then skynet

[Joe_Dragon]

what about an no nuke back? but then skynet can just wipe out
USSR
China

Re:what about an no nuke back? but then skynet

[Anonymous Coward]

Please supply an English translation of your post.

Re:what about an no nuke back? but then skynet

[Dread_ed]

Is that like the game of "tag"?

NUKE!! No nuke back!

Just lethal autonomous weapons are a problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

So it's ok to create a machine that knows how to subdue someone with a tazer/firehose/bean bag shotgun.

And it's entirely someone else's bad karma if they swap out the gear for a gun/flamethrower/slug?

Sounds legit. Let's get this party started, there's money to be made.

Fix the economy first

[Anonymous Coward]

When down on their luck, people will write malicious AI for financial gain. Make sure the amount of money you can earn from ethical AI exceeds that of bad.

If it can be done, it will be done

[Ol Olsoc]

"Thousands of artificial intelligence experts are calling on governments to take preemptive action before it's too late."

It is too late.

Re:If it can be done, it will be done

[Sponge Bath]

HAL-lelujah and pass the robot oil.

Re:If it can be done, it will be done

[bev_tech_rob]

HAL-lelujah and pass the robot oil.

EX-TER-MIN-ATE!!!!!

Re:If it can be done, it will be done

[Rick Schumann]

You're not wrong. Perhaps in first-world countries we'll say 'no' to this, but countries like China or Russia? They won't refrain from it, they'll mass-produce them, and considering the shitty excuse for 'AI' everyone keeps trotting out, they'll all screw up and run rampant as likely as not. Guess we'll have to develop strong EMP weapons against them.

Re:If it can be done, it will be done

[Ol Olsoc]

You're not wrong. Perhaps in first-world countries we'll say 'no' to this, but countries like China or Russia? They won't refrain from it, they'll mass-produce them, and considering the shitty excuse for 'AI' everyone keeps trotting out, they'll all screw up and run rampant as likely as not. Guess we'll have to develop strong EMP weapons against them.

Yes - something will need to be done. I can imagine civilian deaths will be higher than WW2.

Re:If it can be done, it will be done

[Rick Schumann]

Worse, it'll completely insulate people from the horror that is war -- all except the victims, of course. When you don't even have a drone pilot pushing the button to drop a bomb, who is there to have any sort of conscience? My main complaint about the poor excuse for 'AI' everyone keeps trotting out to do this-or-that, is that it's incapable of actual thought, and everything is just an object to it, it doesn't know the difference between a living being (like a human) or a rock or fencepost -- therefore 'collateral damage' has no meaning. Sadly so far as I understand it the current approach isn't ever going to be capable of actual thought or consciousness because we haven't a clue how our own biological brains manage to produce those phenomena, and the chances of being able to build machines that can do that without solving that riddle are slim and none.

Re:If it can be done, it will be done

[Ol Olsoc]

Worse, it'll completely insulate people from the horror that is war -- all except the victims, of course. When you don't even have a drone pilot pushing the button to drop a bomb, who is there to have any sort of conscience

Machines with no conscience, ordered by leaders who possibly have no conscience. A nasty-ass recipe. Coupled with say a country that is staring down it's own defeat. Oh yeah - they will be used. And lest any readers think I want these things - I do not. I just don't see any way they won't be built.

And used.

Re: If it can be done, it will be done

[c6gunner]

Worse, it'll completely insulate people from the horror that is war -- all except the victims, of course.

I keep seeing people say this as if it were some horrible thing to be avoided at all costs but, other than that their gut feeling that it's "bad" and "will leas to more wars", I've seen nobody offer any actual evidence that it's likely to lead to a negative outcome.

The fact of the matter is that we have been progressively "insulating people from the horrors of war" for centuries now, yet the number of war deaths per capita have steadily declined. This isn't inherently causitive, of course, but it certainly doesn't support the idea that more isolation equals more death and destruction.

Re:If it can be done, it will be done

[houghi]

They do not WANT it to think, because then it will learn thet the best option to win is not to play.
So how about nice game of chess, professor Falken?

Re:If it can be done, it will be done

[Rick Schumann]

Coupled with say a country that is staring down it's own defeat.

In more than one science fiction story I've read or watched (and I suspect, you as well) the 'doomsday weapon' gets used out of spite. Think Saberhagens' planet-killing, life-destroying berzerkers. Or, everyones' more recent favorite, Skynet/Terminators. Or The Matrix.

There are reasons I have well beyond the fascinating idea of having a conversation with a truly sentient, self-aware, fully cognitive and reasoning machine with a real personality: The current poor excuse for 'AI' they keep trotting out can't be 'reasoned' with because it has none of those traits. True 'machine intelligence'? Sure. But I want to be able to talk with it and have it explain it's reasoning to me as to why it does what it does or why it gives a certain answer to a question. The current technology, even the programmers that designed it will tell you they have no idea what's going on 'under the hood', it just does what it does. That's positively scary to me when you're going to put such a machine in charge of something that could potentially get people killed.

Re: If it can be done, it will be done

[Rick Schumann]

The fact of the matter is that we have been progressively "insulating people from the horrors of war" for centuries now

Are you somehow saying this is a GOOD thing? Because if you are then you're a horribly broken excuse for a human being. We should hit everyone full-on in the face with what war really is. No more desensitization!

Re:If it can be done, it will be done

[Anonymous Coward]

Spotted the guy doesn't actually watch Dr. Who

Re:If it can be done, it will be done

[apoc.famine]

Machines with no conscience, ordered by leaders who possibly have no conscience.

More likely ordered by leaders advised by AI on how to most efficiently achieve their desired outcome. Maybe even with a choice of civilian casualty levels, and the difference in outcome for each one.

"Humm, do I pick 20% casualties and it ends in three weeks, or do I go for 50% and end it in one week. Well, two weeks from now I'm supposed to be going on that trip to Hawaii, so I guess I'll go for 50% and wrap this up faster."

"Siri, please order the 50% casualty strategy."

Re: If it can be done, it will be done

[c6gunner]

Are you somehow saying this is a GOOD thing? Because if you are then you're a horribly broken excuse for a human being. We should hit everyone full-on in the face with what war really is. No more desensitization!

That's a rather psychotic line of reasoning. I've argued that isolating people from the horrors of war seems to have either led to a decrease in the lethality of war, or have at least been correlated with it. In response to that, you've basically said "oh yeah? Well I WANT people to be scarred by war!"

Why? Because it will make you feel better about your preexisting beliefs?

That's more than a little nuts, and insanely inhumane.

Re: If it can be done, it will be done

[astrofurter]

Hasn't the US military been using real live killer robots in the Afghan and Iraqi wars for, I dunno, like ten years?

Re: If it can be done, it will be done

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope you lost that argument.

If was is too easy for 'other people' to do on your behalf and you can just live in a bubble and pretend it isn't happening. That's the worst possioble outcome.

If people knew how messy and bloody and horrible it was, maybe they would think twice before sending other people off to fight them on their behalf.

Re: If it can be done, it will be done

[c6gunner]

That's a nice hypothesis but, for the third time, historical trends suggest otherwise.

Re: If it can be done, it will be done

[Anonymous Coward]

They do nothing of the sort. What alternative reality are you basing that 'observation' on?

can't happen

[Anonymous Coward]

Whomever makes it first wins.
If everyone else promises not to, then it is a huge win for the sole owner.

I don't see anything outside of the biggest and most scared of each other being the ones that own the technology.

If you tell me that China or Russia aren't making these right now, I will think you are not thinking clearly. Of course they are.

Boston Dynamics

[BlackOverflow]

And Boston Dynamics happily carries on creating robots that will kill us all. They don't care about treaties or anything. They have way too many billions invested to stop.

Re:Boston Dynamics

[Anonymous Coward]

And Google happily carries on creating robots that will kill us all. They don't care about treaties or anything. They have way too many billions invested to stop.

TFTFY

THAT IS WHY IT WILL HAPPEN

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope everyone hasn't been training by watching people escape robots in every movie because that's not how it will go.

The only thing that will stop bad robot with a gun

[olsmeister]

Is a good robot with a gun. If you take the guns away from the good robots, then only the bad robots will have the guns.

One thing though

[Ol Olsoc]

These folks have at least figured out that if it isn't humans directly killing other humans, there isn't much point to warfare.

Humans have an innate need to kill other humans. Call some group the "other" and it's off to war. We've done it since we came down from the trees. We've never stopped doing it. We will continue to do it. It will probably be the source of our extinction as our Lizard brain uses our higher thought process and the technology that enables our technology to send us out in a blaze of glory. And a lot of people will celebrate that moment.

Re:One thing though

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you killed other humans? I imagine the vast majority of all humans to ever live never killed anyone.

Seems to me that's a pretty broad brush you are painting with and all it does it serve to normalize the behaviour of those that benefit from it.

Re:One thing though

[Anonymous Coward]

The point to warfare if it doesn't involve humans killing other humans will be the same as the point to warfare involving humans killing other humans: profit. And if there can be a company supplying both sides of a battle that endlessly calls for new "troops" to be built on both sides to keep up with the daily death count, that company would GLADLY build the ever loving hell out of some killbots.

Re:One thing though

[Ol Olsoc]

Have you killed other humans?

Certainly not directly. A fair bit of my work has been military oriented. So depends on one's definition.

I imagine the vast majority of all humans to ever live never killed anyone.

You are analyzing this incorrectly. Direct killing is not the main metric. Support of it is. Most females are not terribly interested in making war. Most old men are not interested - the exception being old politicians that seem to look for excuses to send young men off as cannon fodder. Regardless, it isn't the specific numbers of people doing the actual killing - its the acceptance of it, and the fact that there do not seem to be many periods of time when humanity hasnt been engaging in diplomacy by death and destruction.

As an example - there is no evidence that old Uncle Adolph ever personally killed anyone. Some folks don't think he was a very peaceful man who would never harm anyone.

Seems to me that's a pretty broad brush you are painting with and all it does it serve to normalize the behaviour of those that benefit from it.

If I'm normalizing anything, it is the normal state of Humanity that has nothing to do with me espousing or condemning it. I merely observe that there has been almost no time in known human history that the world has been at peace. In a 1968 book, there was a claim that "out of the past 3,421 years, only 268 have been free of war.” that has since been disputed, but not in the direction of more peaceful times.

So if killing others is not a core competency and drive of humans, we are the best example of metastatic and fatal masochism ever.

Re:One thing though

[Ol Olsoc]

The point to warfare if it doesn't involve humans killing other humans will be the same as the point to warfare involving humans killing other humans: profit. And if there can be a company supplying both sides of a battle that endlessly calls for new "troops" to be built on both sides to keep up with the daily death count, that company would GLADLY build the ever loving hell out of some killbots.

Well, I suppose it will get rid of all that useless cash sitting around the house. 8^)

Most feared robot is autonomous cars

[u19925]

The biggest autonomous "robots" deployment is going to be fully autonomous cars. Many pundits are predicting that autonomous cars are the future and once you have autonomous cars, owning a car would be lot more expensive than ride sharing services. They are predicting that US car ownership can reduce by 50-80% and ride sharing services running millions of autonomous cars. Imagine if someone can break into a large ride sharing service and start all the autonomous cars and direct them on pedestrians... It can be far worse than 9/11.

Re:Most feared robot is autonomous cars

[Joe_Dragon]

death race!

Re:Most feared robot is autonomous cars

[Areyoukiddingme]

Imagine if someone can break into a large ride sharing service and start all the autonomous cars and direct them on pedestrians... It can be far worse than 9/11.

In the US anywhere outside of New York City it's not a problem at all. First there would have to be pedestrians for them to be in any danger.

But I guess 9/11 happened in New York City, so there's that.

Re:Most feared robot is autonomous cars

[Anonymous Coward]

Autonomous pizza copters delivering Domino's death disks.

Cheap deadly and delivered in 30 minutes or less!

Re:Most feared robot is autonomous cars

[Rick Schumann]

I've been saying this all along. We can't even seem to manage to secure our basic data systems, personal computers, and smartphones, do they really think they'll be able to keep anyone from hacking SDCs and taking remote control of them? Especially considering that, in the SDC Future Utopia they're trying to sell us, remote control capability will be baked right into the cars' software, so that law enforcement can take control any time they want, and the occupants won't have any say in it, they'll be locked into the vehicle and taken wherever it is the cops want them to go. From there it'll be TRIVIAL for criminals, terrorists, or whoever has the smarts to pull it off, to hack into whatever vehicle they want to, kidnap people, send them to their deaths, or use the vehicle as an assault weapon or a bomb delivery device. Oh and by the way a reminder: this is all in addition to the massive risk of the car itself fucking up and getting you killed, or killing someone else, while you watch in horror, unable to make it STOP. I'd rather WALK everywhere the rest of my life than set foot in one of these death traps. I'll be glad when the whole fad dies and goes away.

Re:Most feared robot is autonomous cars

[Anonymous Coward]

> Imagine if someone can break in and control all the cars
Long live the cloud! Long live phoning home! Long live devices that obey a remote checklist, not the user!

If your device has to ask for permission to boot, you're not the owner.

Re:Most feared robot is autonomous cars

[pr0fessor]

When people say autonomous car I think of all the times I've seen GPS glitch. If this is used in autonomous cars they could be turning early or late and hitting sidewalks, buildings, and pedestrians all the time.

Re:Most feared robot is autonomous cars

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not that hard to mitigate this. Put two dish antennas in the roof of your car and use cross correlation to filter out all nearby source of radiation. This can make virtually all usual attacks ineffective. Only a military style attacks using multiple tall towers specifically targeting your vehicle will work (they still fail to work on military vehicles as they use encryption, at most they can be jammed but cannot be fed wrong data).

Re:Most feared robot is autonomous cars

[desdinova 216]

wasn't there a Black Mirror episode similar to that

Re: Most feared robot is autonomous cars

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet Waymo seems to be doing fine. I wonder how is that possible.

Re:Most feared robot is autonomous cars

[Gravis Zero]

Many pundits are predicting that autonomous cars are the future and once you have autonomous cars, owning a car would be lot more expensive than ride sharing services.

Many pundits are also stupid.

Re:Most feared robot is autonomous cars

[Anonymous Coward]

"Imagine if someone can break into a large ride sharing service and start all the autonomous cars and direct them on pedestrians... It can be far worse than 9/11"

Just imagine if cars just randomly killed dozens or perhaps a hundred people a day on average. That's like a 9/11 every two weeks.
Oh yeah, that's already happening!! WE NEED TO STOP THIS MADNESS!!! BAN CARS NOW!!

\\ please shut the 4@%& up about how the future could be so bad, when most people are trying to fix today's already worse problems!

Re:Most feared robot is autonomous cars

[Anonymous Coward]

I am less worried about that and more worried about a bunch of rich people building an Army of these robots and taking over stuff. Human armies can rebel, human armies can tell their masters "No" or turn on them if they get too bad. It doesn't happen most times but can.

Robots will do whatever they are told and will never question it from their controller. Last thing I want is to find out the Waltons and a few other rich people had 100 million of these robots built and are trying to take over a small country and then trying to expand from there.

You say that could never happen? Look at what is already happening and look at how they treat the working class and poor. They would remove us now if they could but we are their workers and their customers who provide for their standard of living. Once we are no longer needed for that, how many of them will think we are no longer needed?

Re:Most feared robot is autonomous cars

[houghi]

At this moment car sharing IS already cheaper than owning a car for many people. (No, not for everybody). As the majority of people how not yet changed over means that many people do not only thing rationally, but also emotionally when doing things like buying a car, talking to peope and voting.

Re: Most feared robot is autonomous cars

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone feel like playing Carmageddon right now?

Re:Most feared robot is autonomous cars

[DredJohn]

Maximum Overdrive!

Re:Most feared robot is autonomous cars

[apoc.famine]

Google "roomba dog shit". I guarantee people fear that far more than an autonomous car.

Re:Most feared robot is autonomous cars

[BranMan]

And if *I* were the one to do the hacking..... I'd ... get ALL the points (!!!)

Cue the evil cackling - I think we're on to something here!

stoopid hoomans!

[Thud457]

It's not the killbots that are gonna get ya, it's the sexbots that are going to lead to your extinction.

Re: stoopid hoomans!

[Anonymous Coward]

IVF and women say no. They don't really care about sex, yeah they enjoy it. But they really want a kid.

Re:stoopid hoomans!

[drinkypoo]

What, am I going to die of exhaustion? The sex bots can simply be made to collect and preserve sperm, and then dispense it again... Swapping it to other bots as necessary.

Re: stoopid hoomans!

[lgw]

IVF and women say no. They don't really care about sex, yeah they enjoy it. But they really want a kid.

Sexbots for women will open jars, kill spiders, and take out the garbage. Then humanity really will go extinct.

Re: stoopid hoomans!

[mnemotronic]

IVF and women say no. They don't really care about sex, yeah they enjoy it. But they really want a kid.

Sexbots for women will open jars, kill spiders, and take out the garbage. Then humanity really will go extinct.

And clean the toilets before they really need it. Put on a new roll of TP the "right" way. Empty the dishwasher. Laugh while watching reruns of "Friends", "Sex in the City" and "Seinfield". Cry during movies like "The Notebook". Talk about their AI feelings. Volunteer to sweep and vacuum. And clean the cat litter box daily.

If my wife that had one that did 80% of that she'd sic a slaughterbot on me.

Re: stoopid hoomans!

[painandgreed]

IVF and women say no. They don't really care about sex, yeah they enjoy it. But they really want a kid.

Sexbots for women will open jars, kill spiders, and take out the garbage. Then humanity really will go extinct.

More importantly, they'll be able to cook and groom themselves.

Re: stoopid hoomans!

[lgw]

There's no shortage of soyboys these days for women who want effeminate men. I don't see effiminate sexbots making that much of a difference, really.

Oddly, a lot of people seems to enjoy chores like sweeping and vacuuming. Seems to scratch some psychological itch. Bizarrely, in every stable married couple I know except one, the woman mows the yard. Still haven't figured that one out, but maybe its the same thing. (The one exception is a very traditional marriage with comically stereotypical gender roles.)

Re: stoopid hoomans!

[Anonymous Coward]

Married 31 years, but I mow the grass because I enjoy it.
(amon because I've already upvoted your earlier comment)

Re: stoopid hoomans!

[Dread_ed]

One thing I have learned about chores. If you want some alone time where no one will interrupt what you are doing, go do the dishes.

No one dares.

Re: stoopid hoomans!

[mnemotronic]

There's no shortage of soyboys these days for women who want effeminate men.

Yea I drink soymilk. Should have mentioned that my wife is essentially house-bound due to health issues.

Re: stoopid hoomans!

[mnemotronic]

One thing I have learned about chores. If you want some alone time where no one will interrupt what you are doing, go do the dishes.

No one dares.

The guy next door puts on headphones and runs his riding mower on glacial speed. He gets hours of alone-time.

Re: stoopid hoomans!

[lgw]

#winning

Ya think?!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like they think the rest of the world is stupid and would just willy nilly make weapons of mass destruction that could wipe the whole human race off the.... planet.... oh.

Re:The only thing that will stop bad robot with a

[Anonymous Coward]

what if the gun is the robot? Why does the robot have to have the gun why not the other way around

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

I'm sure the Russians would NEVER..

[Zorro]

Create killed Robots.

Putin pinkie promised!

Re:I'm sure the Russians would NEVER..

[houghi]

How much of a lying creep Putin is, I still trust him more that the orange one.

Re:Killer autonomous robots over nukes

[PopeRatzo]

I can fight killer robots, but I cannot fight a nuke. Just saying.

And a killer robot with a nuke? Just saying.

Re:Killer autonomous robots over nukes

[coolmoe2]

I look forward to fighting something that can fly and see in the dark with super human agility and accuracy.
Fuck yeah!!
Beings these can be more localized it would be really easy to cover up their use. Also the local area and resources are still usable. So I can see govts more willing to use these then nukes.

Autonomous Killer Robots Already Fielded

[Anonymous Coward]

All post-1970 air defense systems are largely autonomous. I-HAWK had an autonomous mode in 1981. Patriot and S-300 make target selection and launch decisions on their own. HARM picks it's own target if it loses the designated target radar. AI is already fielded and working.

Therminator due to ICBMs.

[Anonymous Coward]

A blast of 1 million Celsius is enough for killing everybody that did habitat on the Earth.

I propose to dismantle every ICBMs before of that a therminator can act against every us.

The next age will be for the Great Devil in Armageddon.

Re:Therminator due to ICBMs.

[youngone]

A blast of 1 million Celsius is enough for killing...

Holy Mackerel, Google's Russian --> English translator is awful.

What a cop out.

[surfcow]

Right now, today,
the most 'dangerously destabilizing force in the world' is
American Democracy.
And the technology that manipulates it.

Not killer robots.
Or genetically modified dinosaurs.
Or sharks with friggin lasers.

It's the tech that makes US voters stupid.

Re:What a cop out.

[Snotnose]

It's the tech that makes US voters stupid.

No, the tech just makes the stupidity more visible.

Re: What a cop out.

[Anonymous Coward]

Go back to sucking Putin's knob, you git.

Re:What a cop out.

[drinkypoo]

What democracy? The USA has never been one. It just plays one on TV.

Politics

[Anonymous Coward]

Could you imagine how amateur killer robots can change politics?

Ultimately futile

[OpenSourced]

You could rewrite that 70 years in the past and substituting "Killer Robots" by "Nuclear weapons", and make the same arguments, and even some arguments being proven right in hindsight.

But technology will mature when it's ready to do so, and no amount of hand-wringing will change that. And anyway, if I they want to choose a dangerous tech to get all anxious about, hands down it should be "genetically engineered viri" rather than "killer robots". At least with a robot you can shoot back.

Re:Ultimately futile

[Anonymous Coward]

if I they want to choose a dangerous tech to get all anxious about, hands down it should be "genetically engineered viri"

The Latin "viri" means "men" (plural of vir=man).
The word "virus" was uncountable in old times, and neuter, so a plural might have been "vira".
However, such a plural was never used, and so the only valid English plural is "viruses".

more like awesome

[schklerg]

I mean random hackable little killers wandering the planet? I LOVE Black Mirror

Not having autonomous weapons == being unarmed

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that autonomous weapons (AWs) will confer such a winning battle advantage to whomever has them, that whomever doesn't have them might as well be unarmed.

I don't see a realistic choice to developing autonomous weaponry because of that--not developing them will be equivalent to conceding any future battle to people who did NOT play by the rules.

That is, unless we use nuclear weaponry to retaliate for use of AWs.

The ONE consolation I have is that considering developing AWs, my biggest target for them would be other AWs. I wouldn't bother designing them to kill people for the most part--winning battles is the objective, not pointless slaughter.

Let's go back to hand-to-hand combat ONLY

[Rick Schumann]

I'm not even kidding or trying to be funny. We, as a species, should go back to warfare using only hand-to-hand weapons like swords, daggers, pikes, and bows and arrows. No more guns, explosives, bombs (conventional or nuclear), planes, weaponized ships of war, and so on. You can have ships that carry troops. It'll be more civilized.

But Rick, hand-to-hand combat was brutal and bloody and and and.. so uncivilized! Gaping bloody wounds, severed limbs and heads, OMFG THE HORROR!!!

EXACTLY. Let's make war so horrifying, so extreme, so UGLY, that no one will be able to stand it. Since there won't be modern things like cannons or other explosive projectiles, having embedded photojournalists in the field would be relatively safe -- and in fact, I would make them MANDATORY, with daily updates of the carnage and death and utter horror that is war. Give it six months, a year at most, and every nation on the planet who is involved in wars will be pressing for peace negotiations.

..if only I had the power to make this happen and enforce it.

Re:Let's go back to hand-to-hand combat ONLY

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm all for this with one caveat. Make the decision makers participate. I don't even mean they have to be in the thick of it and holding a sword. Just make them be on the field. If they decided to send the kids to war, they have to witness the carnage first hand, not filtered through the lens of someone else. That would make the decisions a little more difficult to make, knowing they'd have to stand in the field and watch these people gore and destroy each other.

And as a bonus, if one side loses, the leaders lives are forfeit. They'd then have an actual incentive to THINK about what they're deciding to do.

Re:Let's go back to hand-to-hand combat ONLY

[Rick Schumann]

I agree with you, good idea, but let me do you one better than that, borrowing from a System of a Down song:: Let's send the president and the politicians into the field to witness what the consequences of their decisions are.

Nature of war

[Dutchmaan]

War is war.. you can put all the rules on it that you like, but when the chips are down war has no rules.. period. Someone WILL do this.. and the technology will get out. The world changes and we must adapt to it.

Re:Nature of war

[georgewad]

War. War never changes.
The Romans waged war to gather slaves and wealth. Spain built an empire from its lust for gold and territory. Hitler shaped a battered Germany into an economic superpower.
But war never changes.

No shit.

[Qbertino]

Captain Obvious spoke true words once again.

Doom and gloom

[taustin]

Warnings about military and political catastrophe by people who know nothing about the military, or politics, and automatically assume that anyone who does must be evil and stupid.

How could we possibly survive with the infinite wisdom of Silicon Valley! Just ask them.

In other words, it's a day that ends in "y."

This is a complete non-story. There's no content. They're not wrong, so much, as they have nothing to say at all.

Re:Doom and gloom

[Anonymous Coward]

Repent! Repent! The world will end tomorrow! - but fortunately, tomorrow never comes.

Re:The only thing that will stop bad robot with a

[Anonymous Coward]

That's kind of the idea. Weapons are just boomboom delivery systems. IMO a tank is really just a big gun, with checkboxes for wheel/armor extras.

Bots will also be guns-with-feet, except autonomous.

I'm sorry, but

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't stop the Trumpets, Putlins, Hitlers and Kims of the world, otherwise we wouldn't have them.

Killer Robots Will Be 'Dangerously Destabilizing'

[rsilvergun]

FTFY.

Seriously, the rich are already thinking about a post capitalist society where the working class doesn't factor in. Automated weapons are the way to go. You keep a few engineers on staff to monitor them and pay the engineers well. Unlike the captains of your private military they lack the ambition and charisma to overthrow you.

Meanwhile the rest of us will just be screwed. Think living like the American Indians on the res except without the casinos. If you want to prevent that now's the time. Start demanding a decent quality of life for everyone. Establish it as a basic human right. Or cast your eyes to the reservations circa the 1900s because that's your future. Me? I'm 40 and come from a short lived family. I'll be long gone.

It's not the robots which worry me

[Anonymous Coward]

World Leaders Would Be 'Dangerously Destabilizing' Force in the World, Killer Robots Warn

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Killer autonomous robots over nukes

[suutar]

I've been playing a lot of Fallout 4 lately and I can state that quick action with a tricked out shotgun can usually prevent the nuke from getting used.

Not Gonna Happen

[Anonymous Coward]

Drones are efficient killing machines that cost less money. But people are lazy and greedy, they like huge budgets so they can drop million dollar missiles then pocket the rest.

"640k memory is enough for anyone"

[Tsolias]

grade arguments.

....a circlejerk of celebrity scientists someone else might say.

I'd suggest to all of them, they'd better fix their products before dreaming in some sci-fi movie concept from the 80s.

Enough already...

[rnmartinez]

We know it is going to happen so just build IG-88 already ðY

Re:The only thing that will stop bad robot with a

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want to send my kids to go get shot by robots.

I would MUCH rather send robots to go get shot by robots.

Too late

[Anonymous Coward]

Israel and China have impressive weapons in the field already.

Re:Killer autonomous robots over nukes

[PopeRatzo]

No govt. will enable autonomous killer robots with nukes.

I'm not worried about governments. Wait until the NRA, on Moscow's orders, starts advocating for selling killer robots with nukes at Wal-Mart.

Re:The only thing that will stop bad robot with a

[E-Rock]

That's the real concern. Not that they'll Skynet us, but that the political pressure that keeps us out of conflicts go away when there are no bodybags.

We already have killer robots.

[drinkypoo]

There are already sentry guns. We can already program drones to drop payloads autonomously. We already have killer robots, and we do not even need AI to make them.

Re:We already have killer robots.

[mjwx]

There are already sentry guns. We can already program drones to drop payloads autonomously. We already have killer robots, and we do not even need AI to make them.

This.

I do not fear artificial intelligence... I fear the natural idiots who are giving them orders.

Don't wait for government, force it

[RhettLivingston]

Very few devices today are truly open source software free. The open source community should start rolling anti-weaponization provisions into all open source licenses. Problem solved.

Re:Don't wait for government, force it

[zenbi]

Except that violates a fundamental reason behind the philosophy.

Freedom #0 of the Four Freedoms of the Free Software Definition:

The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).

Item #6 of the Open Source Definition:

6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

Re:Don't wait for government, force it

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh yes. Some ASCII on a website said no, therefore everyone will comply. As we all know, no one breaks software licenses.

How naive.

Re:Don't wait for government, force it

[RhettLivingston]

Better to do something than to spend life hoping for the impossible while doing nothing.

Re:Don't wait for government, force it

[Anonymous Coward]

Then it is not free software anymore (although still open source). Note that licenses rely on copyright, this can often be waived in national security situations.

Really our worst move?

[khb]

Unless AI robots get vastly more flexible rapidly, seems to me that large armies of nasty humans are still a much bigger threat (albeit one we've lived with since time immemorial).

But I suppose in the end, folks think really clever, self improving robots will win the day: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Years ago Bill Joy warned everyone about self replication ("grey goo"). Self replicating *and* self improving seem like much worse ideas than simply arming them.

Use case; Consider some sort of waste repository (nuclear, biologic, something really, really bad to let free..zombie virus perhaps?). Say we've designed the facility to last for thousands of years. Folks have already worried about what happens when the language is no longer known, etc. ... would a "killer robot" as a last line of "defense" be worse than allowing the genie out of the bottle?

Re:Really our worst move?

[drinkypoo]

"Unless AI robots get vastly more flexible rapidly, seems to me that large armies of nasty humans are still a much bigger threat (albeit one we've lived with since time immemorial)."

Robots don't have to live up to our abilities, because they don't have to cope with our particular drawbacks. They can be smaller and more numerous, for example. They don't have to be individually more capable.

That's one way to look at it

[rsilvergun]

Or we could just not do it. It really is that simple. Of course, let's ask ourselves why we want killer robots. We're pretty much past the stage of "defense". Nukes & MAD make that pointless. And hell, so did globalization. You don't shit in your own backyard and for the same reason we're not going to go off and start blowing each other away. The damage done would outweigh the benefit. There'll be brush fires here and there but big scale wars are a thing of the past, if only because they rich won't let us wreck their stuff anymore.

That leaves the other reason for killer robots: so a small group of people can police the impoverished population without risking them turning to a charismatic strongman. If you want to avoid that the only real option is to eliminate those impoverished people and/or to constrain the amount of wealth individuals can claim for their own so they're not building killer robots to defend it.

Re:That's one way to look at it

[Ol Olsoc]

Or we could just not do it. It really is that simple. Of course, let's ask ourselves why we want killer robots. We're pretty much past the stage of "defense". Nukes & MAD make that pointless. And hell, so did globalization. You don't shit in your own backyard and for the same reason we're not going to go off and start blowing each other away. The damage done would outweigh the benefit. There'll be brush fires here and there but big scale wars are a thing of the past, if only because they rich won't let us wreck their stuff anymore.

Oh, I wish. But I surely do not trust leadership. And there is at least one - but no doubt a few more - who are itching to use nucs. Crazy thing is there are a fair number of people who are actively wishing for a world ending conflict.

https://www.amazon.com/Have-Ni...

https://www.livescience.com/14...

http://www.signs-of-end-times.... Dr. Thomas B. Slater, Professor of New Testament at Mercer University On end times date:

“The end of times is something that we all expect and hope for and look forward to but most Christians aren't in the business of trying to predict that date. They are working toward that date.

I've heard a lot of this hoo-haw from religious people who are happy to have the world end. Of course, they just want to light the fuse so they can be raptured. What a death cult.

But that is what we are up against.

Oh hell - I'm harshing my mellow.

Re:That's one way to look at it

[apoc.famine]

That leaves the other reason for killer robots: so a small group of people can police the impoverished population without risking them turning to a charismatic strongman.

You missed the big reason: So a faceless group of people can sow turmoil and remain anonymous. Not being able to set up your industry in the african country you've got your eye on? Whoops, leader just got liquefied by a kill-bot. That 3rd world dictator stirring shit up again? His wife just had a terrible accident. Wife going to divorce you? Damn, she accidentally got her skull cracked by a drone that lost power and fell out of the sky! Tragic!

It's malware all over again. This time, however, it impacts hardware, software and wetware.

I guarantee you someone already has

[rsilvergun]

there's plenty of countermeasures if we just bother with them, which post 9/11 we will. 911 wasn't an inside job, but that doesn't mean we didn't let it happen. The various agencies knew there were terrorists preparing for 911 and let them swim. The only question is did they let them swim hoping to catch bigger fish or so they could get a rise out of the public. If it was the latter, well, they got their rise all right. Post 911 we threw away our rights and acted like "everything changed" when nothing changed until we changeed it.

Re:Killer Robots Will Be 'Dangerously Destabilizin

[drinkypoo]

The NSA has a hard time finding recruits... Because too many of the people with talent are too weird for them, and/or on drugs. Consequently, the hackers are more talented than they are. The ultra-wealthy can no more interface with those people than the NSA can, and their weapons will simply be hacked and used against them. Killer humans barely care who they kill, killer robots do not care even that much.

So, sadly, what they really mean:

[Anonymous Coward]

Autonomous killer robots will be vastly more effective at waging war, despite the likely increase in collateral damage. So of course every government is going to pursue them.

Land mines couldn't be controlled

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem of killer robots may be viewed in the context of land mines and chemical weapons. During the Cambodian civil war, millions of innocent civilians were maimed by inexpensive Chinese land mines scatterd throughout the countryside. All it takes is one rogue country, like China, to manufacture killer robots at a price level that no one can refuse, and they will be uncontrollable. We banned chemical weapons on an international scale, and rogue countries are still using them against their own people. I support this plan, but I don't have high hopes for it, especially since two of the most powerful countries in the world have been expansionist during the past decade.

Marketing

[Anonymous Coward]

These constant stories about military applications for AI sound like PR & marketing to me. The big IT companies want us to beleive that they can make capable autonomous robots. I reckon we're a long, long way from that. It's based more on science fiction than science fact. We don't even know what AI will be useful for yet - it's in its infancy.

Re:Killer autonomous robots over nukes

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah because it's going to be the right colluding with communists instead of the left colluding with communists. Nice try useful idiot.

Human Potential

[Anonymous Coward]

What should the humans who exist now be doing on this planet exactly or even generally? You know, to evolve more with our kin, the other species on earth. Something besides just creating more billions of humans or pursuits of synthesizing nature.

If this question is not considered I wonder the chances of stopping killer robots. Unless you create a clone army of killer robots. Then with all the robots, is this really what we humans want? Are you sure?

I mean there have been movies made about this... Maybe you need a refresher course:)

The NSA isn't who'll do the work

[rsilvergun]

it'll be done by private individuals. And it's not about humans caring who they kill. If fact that makes humans worse. One charismatic leader can turn your entire security force against you. Happened to the Tzars. Happened to the Chinese. Happens all the damn time. So much so we have a word for it (coup).

The machines might get taken over, but not if you pay your engineers well. And engineers aren't a charismatic lot. They'll collect their pay for the killer robots without ever bothering to overthrow the ruling class. They're perfectly content to be well compensated.

Re:The NSA isn't who'll do the work

[drinkypoo]

The hackers are ALREADY outsmarting the engineers. Why do you think that will change?

You need Super Intelligent AI to kill me...

[wolfheart111]

Thanks for the compliment :)

Any legislation...

[Anonymous Coward]

will be as effective as Valve Anti-Cheat.

Re:Killer autonomous robots over nukes

[PopeRatzo]

Yeah because it's going to be the right colluding with communists instead of the left colluding with communists.

Yeah, about that.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/19...

think smaller like mines

[Anonymous Coward]

Much smarter mines that sometimes find soldiers but mostly make life miserable for civilians.

If it is humanoid shoot it. Current generation AI can do that without much need for the tech leaders. In the meantime patrol the area that you want to deny access to.

They would be happy to help with your genocidal war conflict, and you might even be able to hide the extent you are targeting the civilian population.

'Dangerously Destabilizing' Force

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Compared to what?
2) Yeah, definitely since you will not and someone will.

Re: Structure it like the international mine treat

[c6gunner]

Why not structure it like the international mine treaty? You know, the one that pretty much everyone except the USA has agreed to.

You know that you're full of shit when your "almost everyone" doesn't include China, India, Pakistan, Russia, and both Koreas, amongst a list of 30+ countries. You know, only about half of the planet.

You know you're doubly full of shit when out of that list of 30 countries the only one you specifically name is also the only one which has publicly stated that they will abide by the terms of the treaty even though they will not officially ratify it.

Amazingly enough, despite all that, you're still not as full of shit as the countries which HAVE ratified the agreement yet continue to stockpile dual-use antipersonnel landmines such as the claymore, because these are apparently "OK". Particularly entertaining is the fact that Canada - the nation which originated the treaty - still stockpiles claymore mines.

But hey, why waste a good opportunity to ignorantly bash the US, right?

Re:Killer Robots Will Be 'Dangerously Destabilizin

[mentil]

I'm planning on being a pet for our killbot overlords. I've had a fuzzy collar fitted and everything!

We need to recognize irony and post-scarcity

[Paul Fernhout]

My essay: https://www.pdfernhout.net/rec...
"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. ...
    Still, we must accept that there is nothing wrong with wanting some security. The issue is how we go about it in a non-ironic way that works for everyone. The people serving the USA in uniform are some of the most idealistic, brave, and altruistic people around; they just unfortunately are often misled for reasons of profit and power that Major General Butler outlined very clearly in "War is a Racket" decades ago. We need to build a better world where our trusting young people (and the people who give them orders) have more options for helping build a world that works for everyone than "war play". We need to build a better world where some of our most hopeful and trusting citizens are not coming home with PTSD as shattered people (or worse, coming home in body bags) because they were asked to kill and die for an unrecognized irony of using the tools of abundance to create artificial scarcity."

Re:We need to recognize irony and post-scarcity

[RespekMyAthorati]

Military robots like drones are ironic

I think that word does not mean what you think it means.

Unilateral disarmament

[Anonymous Coward]

Unilateral disarmament is a singularly stupid idea. It is usually pushed by people who live cushy lives protected by those who did not disarm. In this case, is China going to eschew these devices? ...That it will love to sell or give to PRC, Iran, Yemen, and use against Tibet, Taiwan, and even Japan. Is it really better for the US to be sending 18 year old boys to their deaths?

The Blatant Reality is..

[Xnet Project]

In reality, no matter how many top minds pledge to not take part in the creation of weaponized AI, there is always a think-tank of scientists already working on it. The more pressing question is not who, or even how but when.

Killer alright

[DredJohn]

Killer as in Job Killer

Re: Structure it like the international mine treat

[Anonymous Coward]

You tell 'em, Fritz!

Europa uber alles!

Is just a sign of the total failure of politicians

[Anonymous Coward]

Politics and politicians were supposed to solve problems in a peaceful way, the promise was that military would be less necessary, instead they increase frictions and hate and use it to hide their greed, lust, envy, stupidity, ignorance and petty pride.