3 ms·

Could forbid weapons to take kill actions themselves, each instance having to be activated by a human operator. Could also forbid self-replication of weaponize

Could forbid weapons to take kill actions themselves, each instance having to be activated by a human operator. Could also forbid self-replication of weaponized robots.

qbrass 9y ago
So you didn't bother trying to bypass your own rules without breaking them?
Joeri 9y ago
If you deploy automated drone factories that send out millions of these things, and then have an army of people all pressing "kill" buttons as if they were doing a quick-fire arcade game, without even seeing what they were killing, it would comply with the rules you describe.
- yorwba 9y ago
  Those rules would be enforced by humans, and humans don't tend to be very impressed by attempts to follow the letter of the law while violating its spirit. Laws as written have all kinds of obvious loopholes, but they are intentionally vague enough that a judge can look at your "obvious loophole" and decide that you are in violation anyway.
  - gaius 9y ago
    hose rules would be enforced by humans, and humans don't tend to be very impressed by attempts to follow the letter of the law while violating its spirit. That Google, Apple, Uber et al pay so very little tax suggests that that is an optimistic appraisal.
- jononor 9y ago
  Sure. At least it cannot be done without the active participation of humans. Who hat least may object, though there are many ways to attempt to avoid that from happening. One being deluding them into thinking it is just a game.
rqs 9y ago
Do you still remember The Three Laws of Robotics[0]? Not too many people still mentions it now days. Killing AI is not the same problem with nuclear weapon. Because AI weapon is far easier to make compare to nuclear one. Technically, you can do it right now with your DJI drone, all it takes is just to program it to do some automatic control. So I'm not quite optimistic about any attempt on limit those kind of weapons base on current condition we are in. [0] https://www.auburn.edu/~vestmon/robotics.html https://www.auburn.edu/~vestmon/robotics.html
- robotresearcher 9y ago
  The three laws are a literary device, not a serious engineering proposal. The stories they were introduced in described exactly why they have such serious problems.
  - rqs 9y ago
    > they were introduced in described exactly why they have such serious problems. Yet, people stopped mentioning this kind of warning even it was already there for way over half of a century. Reason of we successfully limited use of nuclear weapon is because, well, the US tested it on Japanese, saw the devastating result and thinking "What if the Japanese (Or Russian, Chinese etc) one day use it on us?". I would guess only similar event can trigger everyone on earth stand in line and effectively ban those AI weapons all together. That's AFTER we all actually be seriously hurt by it. It's just like the warning of globe warming, the math is there, proved by observation, somebody out there still believe we will be fine because the whole globe warming thing is just a conspiracy made by China.
jstanley 9y ago
Why not go one step further and say that nobody is allowed to take a kill action? Killing is murder. Not sarcastic.
- nine_k 9y ago
  The first force to break the rule will prevail. Pacifism is an unstable configuration; non-aggression is.
nradov 9y ago
Such weapons have existed for a long time already and there's no practical way to write a legally enforceable treaty banning them. Do you really think that Russia or China would ever allow the USA to audit the source code in their weapons systems? It's ludicrous.

Could forbid weapons to take kill actions themselves, each instance having to be activated by a human operator. Could also forbid self-replication of weaponized robots.

qbrass 9y ago

So you didn't bother trying to bypass your own rules without breaking them?

Joeri 9y ago

If you deploy automated drone factories that send out millions of these things, and then have an army of people all pressing "kill" buttons as if they were doing a quick-fire arcade game, without even seeing what they were killing, it would comply with the rules you describe.

yorwba 9y ago
Those rules would be enforced by humans, and humans don't tend to be very impressed by attempts to follow the letter of the law while violating its spirit. Laws as written have all kinds of obvious loopholes, but they are intentionally vague enough that a judge can look at your "obvious loophole" and decide that you are in violation anyway.
- gaius 9y ago
  hose rules would be enforced by humans, and humans don't tend to be very impressed by attempts to follow the letter of the law while violating its spirit. That Google, Apple, Uber et al pay so very little tax suggests that that is an optimistic appraisal.
jononor 9y ago
Sure. At least it cannot be done without the active participation of humans. Who hat least may object, though there are many ways to attempt to avoid that from happening. One being deluding them into thinking it is just a game.

rqs 9y ago

Do you still remember The Three Laws of Robotics[0]? Not too many people still mentions it now days. Killing AI is not the same problem with nuclear weapon. Because AI weapon is far easier to make compare to nuclear one. Technically, you can do it right now with your DJI drone, all it takes is just to program it to do some automatic control. So I'm not quite optimistic about any attempt on limit those kind of weapons base on current condition we are in. [0] https://www.auburn.edu/~vestmon/robotics.html https://www.auburn.edu/~vestmon/robotics.html

robotresearcher 9y ago
The three laws are a literary device, not a serious engineering proposal. The stories they were introduced in described exactly why they have such serious problems.
- rqs 9y ago
  > they were introduced in described exactly why they have such serious problems. Yet, people stopped mentioning this kind of warning even it was already there for way over half of a century. Reason of we successfully limited use of nuclear weapon is because, well, the US tested it on Japanese, saw the devastating result and thinking "What if the Japanese (Or Russian, Chinese etc) one day use it on us?". I would guess only similar event can trigger everyone on earth stand in line and effectively ban those AI weapons all together. That's AFTER we all actually be seriously hurt by it. It's just like the warning of globe warming, the math is there, proved by observation, somebody out there still believe we will be fine because the whole globe warming thing is just a conspiracy made by China.

jstanley 9y ago

Why not go one step further and say that nobody is allowed to take a kill action? Killing is murder. Not sarcastic.

nine_k 9y ago
The first force to break the rule will prevail. Pacifism is an unstable configuration; non-aggression is.

nradov 9y ago

Such weapons have existed for a long time already and there's no practical way to write a legally enforceable treaty banning them. Do you really think that Russia or China would ever allow the USA to audit the source code in their weapons systems? It's ludicrous.