5 ms·

I doubt that the militaries of the whole world will just sit and ignore the AI advantages. Something as simple as an aimbot with a scope can do a tremendous am

I doubt that the militaries of the whole world will just sit and ignore the AI advantages. Something as simple as an aimbot with a scope can do a tremendous amount of damage - it doesn't get tired, it can see in the dark, it can compensate for the wind perfectly, it doesn't shake, its reaction time is in milliseconds, and it almost never misses.

daveguy 9y ago
That is one place AI should 100% be regulated. There should be no weapons development where AI makes the kill decision. This is as important as the ban on chemical, biological and mine weapons. When the weapon has the ability to kill indiscriminately (as in the above categories) it should be banned. AI should never be considered sufficiently able to discriminate to make a kill decision. If there is no kill decision, just wait and fire, then it is equal to a mine. 100% should regulate / should ban.
- stale2002 9y ago
  OK, but what if the human makes the decision to kill, and the AI just does the aiming? We already have computer controlled missiles right?
- olegkikin 9y ago
  Unfortunately there are countries that don't care about your regulations. I'm not even sure a regulation like that can pass in most western countries.
  - daveguy 9y ago
    Fortunately it wouldn't be a regulation passed by individual countries. It would be a treaty on war crimes: https://www.unog.ch/80256EE600585943/(httpPages)/F027DAA4966EB9C7C12580CD0039D7B5?OpenDocument https://www.unog.ch/80256EE600585943/(httpPages)/F027DAA4966... It would likely pass and be agreed to easily just like treaties on mines, chemical and biological weapons.
    - fundingshovel 9y ago
      Just like mines... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Ottawa_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Ottawa_... Seeing how the US has yet to sign the Ottawa treaty I wouldn't call it easily agreed on by any means.

daveguy 9y ago

That is one place AI should 100% be regulated. There should be no weapons development where AI makes the kill decision. This is as important as the ban on chemical, biological and mine weapons. When the weapon has the ability to kill indiscriminately (as in the above categories) it should be banned. AI should never be considered sufficiently able to discriminate to make a kill decision. If there is no kill decision, just wait and fire, then it is equal to a mine. 100% should regulate / should ban.

stale2002 9y ago
OK, but what if the human makes the decision to kill, and the AI just does the aiming? We already have computer controlled missiles right?
olegkikin 9y ago
Unfortunately there are countries that don't care about your regulations. I'm not even sure a regulation like that can pass in most western countries.
- daveguy 9y ago
  Fortunately it wouldn't be a regulation passed by individual countries. It would be a treaty on war crimes: https://www.unog.ch/80256EE600585943/(httpPages)/F027DAA4966EB9C7C12580CD0039D7B5?OpenDocument https://www.unog.ch/80256EE600585943/(httpPages)/F027DAA4966... It would likely pass and be agreed to easily just like treaties on mines, chemical and biological weapons.
  - fundingshovel 9y ago
    Just like mines... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Ottawa_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Ottawa_... Seeing how the US has yet to sign the Ottawa treaty I wouldn't call it easily agreed on by any means.