7 ms·

Yes. I can only refuse to play and hope the Russians et al come to their senses, the United Nations starts to work better, etc. If we go down that road, it wi

Yes. I can only refuse to play and hope the Russians et al come to their senses, the United Nations starts to work better, etc. If we go down that road, it will be the end of most of us, if not all of us. We really have no chance against a machine that's decided to shoot us. As a species we need to have zero tolerance for it - we won't be rendered extinct by snazzy terminators, we'll be killed by the 21st century version of a Victorian steam loom. Its truly a horrible problem, because the solution can't be creating autonomous systems to kill other autonomous systems. The rest of the distinction is just data. The only way to win is not to play.

ryandrake 8y ago
That’s the problem with mutually assured destruction weapons (which AI bots most surely qualify as). If you accept as a given that at least one faction is building them, then the other factions’ only choices are: 1. Build your own and pray for a Cold War stalemate and 2. Don’t build your own and guarantee you’ll be destroyed.
- MarkMMullin 8y ago
  MAD was based on the concept of the 'Nuclear Club' - the barrier to entry was the mass defect ratio, which you'd have to calculate on your own, and then you'd confront nation-state level expenses of turning that knowledge into practical engineering. It had an inherent cap on the number of possible players. Not saying it was nice, it was just manageable. The barriers to entry here are much lower. For smaller players, lethal drone prices would be at the several hundred dollar range with a six digit investment in infrastructure, and I'd have full confidence in American defense contractors to drive that price much lower, in order to protect their margins, and at scale, they'll mess up their inventory control. The only choice is to recognize as a species this cannot be done, or it will be done. This equation is not about the few agreeing not to kill the many, it is about the many realizing that this is a road to an extinction level event. I don't mean to be dramatic, but I have a system I could make kill if I wanted to, and I paid for the whole thing on credit cards. Its too easy and too efficient. The number of players can't be counted on one hand, it's a tech lone individuals could deploy. If they do then others will, you net an exponential growth rate in deployment, and then the game is over. At the end of the day, all of the pieces are already here - a motivated individual can do a lot of damage, several motivated individuals or groups can get into a squabble and the damage rises exponentially. It is simply not an avenue we can accept. The limit to entry is not financial, it is not technical, it only can be that we must not. I'm pleased Google has defined their ethics as a company, I just argue in this case we need to define our ethics as a species. We cannot build these because if we do they will get loose, they will be used, and it will be a tragedy. We must all agree that arming autonomous machines is beyond the pale, for any one, for any reason. As soon as one is built, your destruction is guaranteed, regardless of whether you too build one. .
  - ryandrake 8y ago
    I guess my point is (and it looks like we agree): good luck getting all billion+ people on the planet with a credit card to agree that building a kill bot is a bad idea. All it takes is for one of those people to disagree, build them, and then we all must have them.
    - Maybestring 8y ago
      >All it takes is for one of those people to disagree, build them, and then we all must have them. A killbot is (more or less) a mobile booby trap. If we have a problem with madmen leaving booby traps around, we can't solve that by laying more booby traps.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
hueving 8y ago
This is a bit dramatic though because these robots can't reload themselves. Automated targeting for a single area is miles away from planning strategy, deploying battle groups, etc.
- djrogers 8y ago
  > This is a bit dramatic though because these robots can't reload themselves Yet...
  - killjoywashere 8y ago
    Seriously, I've already got three ideas cooking on how that could be done. That's essentially the same skill as landing.
- iainmerrick 8y ago
  None of that stuff sounds impossible, though. Hard, sure, but well within the bounds of possibility.
- MarkMMullin 8y ago
  Not dramatic - the robots are not expected to reload - one robot one kill - simple as that- mass produced plastic, lots of robots, no intention whatsoever for reusability - the risk is that this means you dump thousands to millions of these stupid little drones, many make mistakes, and many others take naps and then wake up and do more damage when everyone thought it was all over. These are disposable killing machines, not Reapers. Furthermore, at todays prices, a cloud infrastructure and a million dollars can net you 10K lethal drones. There's no finesse, just brute force.
- munificent 8y ago
  > This is a bit dramatic though because these robots can't reload themselves. Neither can mines, and look at the decades of devastation those have caused. Now imagine a minefield where the mines get up and chase after you.
  - 8y ago

ryandrake 8y ago

That’s the problem with mutually assured destruction weapons (which AI bots most surely qualify as). If you accept as a given that at least one faction is building them, then the other factions’ only choices are: 1. Build your own and pray for a Cold War stalemate and 2. Don’t build your own and guarantee you’ll be destroyed.

MarkMMullin 8y ago
MAD was based on the concept of the 'Nuclear Club' - the barrier to entry was the mass defect ratio, which you'd have to calculate on your own, and then you'd confront nation-state level expenses of turning that knowledge into practical engineering. It had an inherent cap on the number of possible players. Not saying it was nice, it was just manageable. The barriers to entry here are much lower. For smaller players, lethal drone prices would be at the several hundred dollar range with a six digit investment in infrastructure, and I'd have full confidence in American defense contractors to drive that price much lower, in order to protect their margins, and at scale, they'll mess up their inventory control. The only choice is to recognize as a species this cannot be done, or it will be done. This equation is not about the few agreeing not to kill the many, it is about the many realizing that this is a road to an extinction level event. I don't mean to be dramatic, but I have a system I could make kill if I wanted to, and I paid for the whole thing on credit cards. Its too easy and too efficient. The number of players can't be counted on one hand, it's a tech lone individuals could deploy. If they do then others will, you net an exponential growth rate in deployment, and then the game is over. At the end of the day, all of the pieces are already here - a motivated individual can do a lot of damage, several motivated individuals or groups can get into a squabble and the damage rises exponentially. It is simply not an avenue we can accept. The limit to entry is not financial, it is not technical, it only can be that we must not. I'm pleased Google has defined their ethics as a company, I just argue in this case we need to define our ethics as a species. We cannot build these because if we do they will get loose, they will be used, and it will be a tragedy. We must all agree that arming autonomous machines is beyond the pale, for any one, for any reason. As soon as one is built, your destruction is guaranteed, regardless of whether you too build one. .
- ryandrake 8y ago
  I guess my point is (and it looks like we agree): good luck getting all billion+ people on the planet with a credit card to agree that building a kill bot is a bad idea. All it takes is for one of those people to disagree, build them, and then we all must have them.
  - Maybestring 8y ago
    >All it takes is for one of those people to disagree, build them, and then we all must have them. A killbot is (more or less) a mobile booby trap. If we have a problem with madmen leaving booby traps around, we can't solve that by laying more booby traps.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

hueving 8y ago

This is a bit dramatic though because these robots can't reload themselves. Automated targeting for a single area is miles away from planning strategy, deploying battle groups, etc.

djrogers 8y ago
> This is a bit dramatic though because these robots can't reload themselves Yet...
- killjoywashere 8y ago
  Seriously, I've already got three ideas cooking on how that could be done. That's essentially the same skill as landing.
iainmerrick 8y ago
None of that stuff sounds impossible, though. Hard, sure, but well within the bounds of possibility.
MarkMMullin 8y ago
Not dramatic - the robots are not expected to reload - one robot one kill - simple as that- mass produced plastic, lots of robots, no intention whatsoever for reusability - the risk is that this means you dump thousands to millions of these stupid little drones, many make mistakes, and many others take naps and then wake up and do more damage when everyone thought it was all over. These are disposable killing machines, not Reapers. Furthermore, at todays prices, a cloud infrastructure and a million dollars can net you 10K lethal drones. There's no finesse, just brute force.
munificent 8y ago
> This is a bit dramatic though because these robots can't reload themselves. Neither can mines, and look at the decades of devastation those have caused. Now imagine a minefield where the mines get up and chase after you.
- 8y ago