5 ms·

Human beings have been extremely easy to kill for our entire existence. No system of laws can possibly keep you alive if your neighbors are willing to kill you

Human beings have been extremely easy to kill for our entire existence. No system of laws can possibly keep you alive if your neighbors are willing to kill you, and nothing can make them actually unable to kill you. Your neighbor could walk over and put a blade in your jugular, you're dead. They could drive into you at 15MPH with their car, you're dead. They could set your house on fire while you're asleep, you're dead. The only thing which keeps you alive is the unwillingness of your neighbors and those who surround you to kill you. The law might punish them afterward, but extensive research has shown that it provides no disuasion to people who are actually willing to kill someone. A military AI being used to wipe out large numbers of people is exactly as 'inevitable' as the weapons we already have being used to wipe out large numbers of people. The exact same people will be making the decisions and setting the goals. In that scenario, the AI is nothing but a fancy new gun, and I don't see any reason to think it would be used differently in most cases. With drones we have seen the CIA, a civilian intelligence agency, waging war on other nations without any legal basis, but that's primarily a political issue and the fact that it can be done in pure cowardice, without risking the life of those pulling the trigger, which I think is a distinct problem from AI.

rocqua 10y ago
It's about power imbalance and inpersonality. Killing people when neither they nor their friends can retaliate is easier. Being able to say do X or I kill you, without the other party having a defense that will even inconvenience you gives you a shitton of power. Military AI would basically be nukes without the fall-out or collateral damage.
mokash 10y ago
So ideally there would be an AI criminal justice system, just to balance things out.
mtgx 10y ago
This is exactly the same argument of targeted surveillance vs mass surveillance. Saying "humans have spied on each other for centuries" is nothing but a distraction for how far beyond what should be legal mass surveillance is, because it makes it so easy to have everything on everyone all the time. It's nothing like pass targeted surveillance. If anything it's much more like Stasi-style surveillance, but on a much bigger and more indepth scale. And we already know how dangerous such surveillance is with the wrong person leading a country. When war becomes easy and cheap (to the attacker), you'll just end up having more of it. It doesn't help the the military industrial complex constantly lobbies for it either.
- adriand 10y ago
  That's the opposite of how history has played out with respect to violence, however. It is far easier (and less risky) to kill vast numbers of people now than it was hundreds and thousands of years ago, and yet the risk of any one person being killed by violence is far lower than at any previous point in history.
  - jameswilsterman 10y ago
    How are you calculating the 'risk of any one person being killed by violence' today? To make that claim you need to consider tail risk and black swan events that are possible but have little precedent. What weight are you giving the likelihood of a person dying by nuclear weapon?
    - adriand 10y ago
      Well, for example, "about 15% of people in prestate eras died violently, compared to about 3% of the citizens of the earliest states". http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424053111904106704576583203589408180 http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240531119041067045765832... As far as predicting the future goes, I can't.
chrshawkes 10y ago
That's not true, if I know my neighbors are coming I'm loading my Remington 870 and I'm waiting for that door to open. In America we're allowed to bear arms for protection.
- pc86 10y ago
  You are missing the point. If everyone around you wants you dead and willing to do it, you're going to die. If the CIA knows of a terrorist camp and wants to kill the people there, they are going to die. AI doesn't change this it just makes it easier.
  - andrepd 10y ago
    Everyone wanted Bin Laden dead, but it still took a few years to manage that. So perhaps not as straightforward.
    - generj 10y ago
      Not everyone wanted Bin Laden dead. Critically, the people he was hiding with and his organization as a whole very much wanted him alive. The people who actually surrounded him on a daily basis did not want to kill him.
    - pc86 10y ago
      How long between the time the CIA knew where he was (definitively) and the time he was killed?
- otakucode 10y ago
  Because you do not live in an action movie, you will not be able to stop them. You will not know they are coming, or when, or know how they intend to do it, etc. If you are well-defended with arms, they will simply use some other method. Having a shotgun does not make you significantly harder to kill in modern society. It would make you harder to kill if we were limited to cinematic tropes like declaring when we intend to do it, how we intend to do it, etc, sure, but we don't live in that world. We live in a world where the only thing that prevents our death, every day of our lives, is that no one nearby is willing to kill us. Some people find that scary, and it may seem like a shaky thing to stake your life on. But, firstly, you have no choice. Secondly, it works for billions of people and has kept us safe for tens of thousands of years. Even after we developed the knowledge, tools, and ability to kill millions at the push of a button.
sorokod 10y ago
The difference is that AI might have an "intent". It may be just a statistical contraption married to some descendent of a heat seeking missile sensor, but from the outside it will look like "intent". Perhaps even without the double quotes.
andrepd 10y ago
People don't kill each other, even if they want to, because they know if they do they will probably spend the rest of their lives in prison. What do you mean this doesn't dissuade people?

rocqua 10y ago

It's about power imbalance and inpersonality. Killing people when neither they nor their friends can retaliate is easier. Being able to say do X or I kill you, without the other party having a defense that will even inconvenience you gives you a shitton of power. Military AI would basically be nukes without the fall-out or collateral damage.

mokash 10y ago

So ideally there would be an AI criminal justice system, just to balance things out.

mtgx 10y ago

This is exactly the same argument of targeted surveillance vs mass surveillance. Saying "humans have spied on each other for centuries" is nothing but a distraction for how far beyond what should be legal mass surveillance is, because it makes it so easy to have everything on everyone all the time. It's nothing like pass targeted surveillance. If anything it's much more like Stasi-style surveillance, but on a much bigger and more indepth scale. And we already know how dangerous such surveillance is with the wrong person leading a country. When war becomes easy and cheap (to the attacker), you'll just end up having more of it. It doesn't help the the military industrial complex constantly lobbies for it either.

adriand 10y ago
That's the opposite of how history has played out with respect to violence, however. It is far easier (and less risky) to kill vast numbers of people now than it was hundreds and thousands of years ago, and yet the risk of any one person being killed by violence is far lower than at any previous point in history.
- jameswilsterman 10y ago
  How are you calculating the 'risk of any one person being killed by violence' today? To make that claim you need to consider tail risk and black swan events that are possible but have little precedent. What weight are you giving the likelihood of a person dying by nuclear weapon?
  - adriand 10y ago
    Well, for example, "about 15% of people in prestate eras died violently, compared to about 3% of the citizens of the earliest states". http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424053111904106704576583203589408180 http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240531119041067045765832... As far as predicting the future goes, I can't.

chrshawkes 10y ago

That's not true, if I know my neighbors are coming I'm loading my Remington 870 and I'm waiting for that door to open. In America we're allowed to bear arms for protection.

pc86 10y ago
You are missing the point. If everyone around you wants you dead and willing to do it, you're going to die. If the CIA knows of a terrorist camp and wants to kill the people there, they are going to die. AI doesn't change this it just makes it easier.
- andrepd 10y ago
  Everyone wanted Bin Laden dead, but it still took a few years to manage that. So perhaps not as straightforward.
  - generj 10y ago
    Not everyone wanted Bin Laden dead. Critically, the people he was hiding with and his organization as a whole very much wanted him alive. The people who actually surrounded him on a daily basis did not want to kill him.
  - pc86 10y ago
    How long between the time the CIA knew where he was (definitively) and the time he was killed?
otakucode 10y ago
Because you do not live in an action movie, you will not be able to stop them. You will not know they are coming, or when, or know how they intend to do it, etc. If you are well-defended with arms, they will simply use some other method. Having a shotgun does not make you significantly harder to kill in modern society. It would make you harder to kill if we were limited to cinematic tropes like declaring when we intend to do it, how we intend to do it, etc, sure, but we don't live in that world. We live in a world where the only thing that prevents our death, every day of our lives, is that no one nearby is willing to kill us. Some people find that scary, and it may seem like a shaky thing to stake your life on. But, firstly, you have no choice. Secondly, it works for billions of people and has kept us safe for tens of thousands of years. Even after we developed the knowledge, tools, and ability to kill millions at the push of a button.

sorokod 10y ago

The difference is that AI might have an "intent". It may be just a statistical contraption married to some descendent of a heat seeking missile sensor, but from the outside it will look like "intent". Perhaps even without the double quotes.

andrepd 10y ago

People don't kill each other, even if they want to, because they know if they do they will probably spend the rest of their lives in prison. What do you mean this doesn't dissuade people?