3 ms·

The problem is AI taking the decision to kill people.

by beojan 8y ago

wetpaws 8y ago
Get your own AI, problem solved.
- drb91 8y ago
  One robot vs state violence?
  - wetpaws 8y ago
    I should've probably elaborate on my comment cause of course people will reflexively downvote it, but proxy wars, smaller armies, and now AI driven conflicts are the natural evolution of warfare. We went from slaughter of millions to hanful of extremely professional soldiers to, eventually fight of machines. (MGS4 depicted it in striking details years ago).
    - simion314 8y ago
      Do you think that a country would surrender because your robots won a robot fight? There will still be an army and an occupation resistance movement that will fight your robots and lives will still be lost. The attackers would continue to destroy the roads,train station, food reserves, energy production facilities ... maybe AI is the future but is not better and we should try to make killer robots usage illegal.
      - wetpaws 8y ago
        The concept of proxy fight is not new, it is probably as old as humanity. Bible had David vs Goliath. Maya used a variation of soccer to solve military conflicts. (You can see it depicted on temple walls). You are focused on "destroying" part, but in fact it is only a part of the warfare, and a very expensive one. (Part of the reason why we see progressively less and less large scale conflicts is because we are growing more and more economically interconnected and a cost of open warfare just not worth it anymore)
        simion314 8y ago
        I would love to see politicians or generals fight directly, but this does not happen at all , we see proxy wars where powers A and B fight indirectly by getting involved in some country C conflict. I do not believe that if we get AI robots involved we will not see bombs land on bridges,as recently as the war in Yugoslavia bombs were droped on economic targets: "NATO bombed strategic economic and societal targets, such as bridges, military facilities, official government facilities, and factories, using long-range cruise missiles to hit heavily defended targets, such as strategic installations in Belgrade and Pristina." Are you imagining 2 robot teams fighting each other and the winner gets the loser resources and impose it's politics, the population will accept that their robots lost ?
- PavlovsCat 8y ago
  > I cannot tell why the spokesmen I have cited want the developments I forecast to become true. Some of them have told me that they work on them for the morally bankrupt reason that "If we don't do it, someone else will." They fear that evil people will develop superintelligent machines and use them to oppress mankind, and that the only defense against these enemy machines will be superintelligent machines controlled by us, that is, by well-intentioned people. Others reveal that they have abdicated their autonomy by appealing to the "principle" of technological inevitability. But, finally, all I can say with assurance is that these people are not stupid. All the rest is mystery. -- Joseph Weizenbaum
ReptileMan 8y ago
I see no problem with that. The killed don't care who took the decision. And we could tune the AI to be as trigger happy as we like it to be. So if you want strict rules of engagement - program them. If you want to cry havoc and unleash the dogs of war - ditto. The moral decision is still yours but as standing order, you ignore couple of middlemen.
- barry-cotter 8y ago
  Or rather than being trigger happy they could have higher standards for targeting than even the ICRC suggests. Leave the cook instead of shooting him as a combatant. Shoot to disable rather than kill. Use less lethal weapons even in a real war if appropriate. Deliberately take 90% casualties in order to minimise civilian or even enemy casualties.
gh02t 8y ago
There's a lot to the question of morality. Can an AI exercise the same moral judgement a human would make, or is it just an imperfect copy doomed to eventually commit an immoral act? I think the latter is obviously true, given that humans aren't perfectly moral decision makers, either. Is the creator of this AI responsible for the actions of their creation? And many other dilemmas and consequences that seem overwhelming to consider, regardless of your conclusion. Also, there's the more practical worry of the Skynet scenario. Once a machine is empowered to make judgement decisions to kill humans it's a real possibility that even something as innocuous as a bug or design flaw could turn the world into a sci-fi cliche. I don't really know where I stand honestly, but I do find the prospect paralyzing.
kamaal 8y ago
We don't yet have any AGI that takes decisions to kill people. So let's be frank, Real Humans are here making decisions to kill people. Only that delegation of non-critical decisions is transitioned to programs.

The problem is AI taking the decision to kill people.

by beojan 8y ago

The problem is AI taking the decision to kill people.

wetpaws 8y ago

Get your own AI, problem solved.

drb91 8y ago
One robot vs state violence?
- wetpaws 8y ago
  I should've probably elaborate on my comment cause of course people will reflexively downvote it, but proxy wars, smaller armies, and now AI driven conflicts are the natural evolution of warfare. We went from slaughter of millions to hanful of extremely professional soldiers to, eventually fight of machines. (MGS4 depicted it in striking details years ago).
  - simion314 8y ago
    Do you think that a country would surrender because your robots won a robot fight? There will still be an army and an occupation resistance movement that will fight your robots and lives will still be lost. The attackers would continue to destroy the roads,train station, food reserves, energy production facilities ... maybe AI is the future but is not better and we should try to make killer robots usage illegal.
    - wetpaws 8y ago
      The concept of proxy fight is not new, it is probably as old as humanity. Bible had David vs Goliath. Maya used a variation of soccer to solve military conflicts. (You can see it depicted on temple walls). You are focused on "destroying" part, but in fact it is only a part of the warfare, and a very expensive one. (Part of the reason why we see progressively less and less large scale conflicts is because we are growing more and more economically interconnected and a cost of open warfare just not worth it anymore)
      - simion314 8y ago
        I would love to see politicians or generals fight directly, but this does not happen at all , we see proxy wars where powers A and B fight indirectly by getting involved in some country C conflict. I do not believe that if we get AI robots involved we will not see bombs land on bridges,as recently as the war in Yugoslavia bombs were droped on economic targets: "NATO bombed strategic economic and societal targets, such as bridges, military facilities, official government facilities, and factories, using long-range cruise missiles to hit heavily defended targets, such as strategic installations in Belgrade and Pristina." Are you imagining 2 robot teams fighting each other and the winner gets the loser resources and impose it's politics, the population will accept that their robots lost ?
PavlovsCat 8y ago
> I cannot tell why the spokesmen I have cited want the developments I forecast to become true. Some of them have told me that they work on them for the morally bankrupt reason that "If we don't do it, someone else will." They fear that evil people will develop superintelligent machines and use them to oppress mankind, and that the only defense against these enemy machines will be superintelligent machines controlled by us, that is, by well-intentioned people. Others reveal that they have abdicated their autonomy by appealing to the "principle" of technological inevitability. But, finally, all I can say with assurance is that these people are not stupid. All the rest is mystery. -- Joseph Weizenbaum

ReptileMan 8y ago

I see no problem with that. The killed don't care who took the decision. And we could tune the AI to be as trigger happy as we like it to be. So if you want strict rules of engagement - program them. If you want to cry havoc and unleash the dogs of war - ditto. The moral decision is still yours but as standing order, you ignore couple of middlemen.

barry-cotter 8y ago
Or rather than being trigger happy they could have higher standards for targeting than even the ICRC suggests. Leave the cook instead of shooting him as a combatant. Shoot to disable rather than kill. Use less lethal weapons even in a real war if appropriate. Deliberately take 90% casualties in order to minimise civilian or even enemy casualties.

gh02t 8y ago

There's a lot to the question of morality. Can an AI exercise the same moral judgement a human would make, or is it just an imperfect copy doomed to eventually commit an immoral act? I think the latter is obviously true, given that humans aren't perfectly moral decision makers, either. Is the creator of this AI responsible for the actions of their creation? And many other dilemmas and consequences that seem overwhelming to consider, regardless of your conclusion. Also, there's the more practical worry of the Skynet scenario. Once a machine is empowered to make judgement decisions to kill humans it's a real possibility that even something as innocuous as a bug or design flaw could turn the world into a sci-fi cliche. I don't really know where I stand honestly, but I do find the prospect paralyzing.

kamaal 8y ago

We don't yet have any AGI that takes decisions to kill people. So let's be frank, Real Humans are here making decisions to kill people. Only that delegation of non-critical decisions is transitioned to programs.