3 ms·

> There needs to be an understanding that it’s as unacceptable as biological warfare Are you under the impression that the major powers don't have biological w

> There needs to be an understanding that it’s as unacceptable as biological warfare Are you under the impression that the major powers don't have biological warfare capabilities? > and that the gloves are off once they are used. So, China uses autonomous killbots in Tibet to control an uprising. The US "takes its gloves off", and...sends a strongly worded letter? Sends the world economy into a freefall? Further, China and Russia could do some limited testing, and then stockpile millions of killbots/killdrones. Once the gloves have already "come off", they can then rule the battlefield, since their opponent(s) won't have a similar massive force. I think the combination of cheap and effective will be impossible for the less scrupulous countries to resist...and possibly the more scrupulous countries as well. It is also a slippery slope - the US is already working on autonomous anti-ship cruise missiles that search an area and look for the correct ship (think "Chinese aircraft carrier"). That implicitly means the missile will autonomously "decide" which ship containing hundreds or thousands of sailors gets hit. Full autonomy will also be a requirement for any effective UCAS capability. I expect that regardless of what treaty is signed, the various powers will make sure there are loopholes permitting what they wish to do - or they will simply ignore the treaty. A concrete example of such behavior is Russia's long-term violations of the INF Treaty.

alkonaut 8y ago
> Are you under the impression that the major powers don't have biological warfare capabilities? No, but that they are extremely careful with using them since it’s considered an extreme escalation to do so even on a small scale. > China uses autonomous killbots in Tibet... Replace “autonomous killbot” with “small tactical nuke” and you see what I’m getting at. They could. But they won’t - because they can accomplish any military goal with conventional means. So why risk the backlash? That’s the kind of threshold I’d like for the deployment of autonomous weapons of this type. And it’s difficult given how easily deniable they are, compared to e.g bioweapons. > ...autonomous cruise missiles... This is an interesting gray area. No one thinks a fuse that ensures a weapon doesn’t blow up a friendly is a bad thing. But we still think of these weapons as being “launched” by a human, even though they can make terminal decisions on their own. I’d draw the line for what’s ethically acceptable at the point where you no longer have a human launch weapons “at” a target but instead launch a weapon to roam. The cruise missiles are still just clever fuses, they don’t linger waiting to autonomously attack ships. The reason this is a gray area and a slippery slope is of course only down to the short flight time of the missiles. If they could fly for a year (like the Russian nuclear experimental missile) then it’s useless against predesignated targets - so effectively a roaming killbot. With current cruise missiles, a human still makes a decision to attack even if it’s only a rough area thought to contain the target. They know what they are trying to attack and there is a human to take the blame if the weapon subsequently makes a mistake and hits a tanker. > ...stockpile millions... Yes. Comparing again to nukes that’s very similar. So would I prefer a world without nukes to one with? Sure. But the best we could do was superpowers stockpiling to ensure mutual destruction. I think that’s the best we can hope for here. I don’t think these weapons won’t be built by the millions, I just hope they will be used reluctantly.
- Recurecur 8y ago
  (Sorry for the late reply...) > The cruise missiles are still just clever fuses, they don’t linger waiting to autonomously attack ships. That is not correct. The cruise missiles will be given an area to search. They will then traverse that area looking for targets. Anything that matches their programming will be hit. I'm sure they're flexible enough to take orders like "attack any destroyer, cruiser, or aircraft carrier". It will be up to the sensors and software to make sure the target isn't a civilian ship, for instance. > I don’t think these weapons won’t be built by the millions, I just hope they will be used reluctantly. They are already being pitched on the open market by the Chinese: >> The Blowfish A2 “autonomously performs complex combat missions, including fixed-point timing detection and fixed-range reconnaissance, and targeted precision strikes.” >> Depending on customer preferences, Chinese military drone manufacturer Ziyan offers to equip Blowfish A2 with either missiles or machine guns. >> Mr Allen wrote: “Though many current generation drones are primarily remotely operated, Chinese officials generally expect drones and military robotics to feature ever more extensive AI and autonomous capabilities in the future. >> “Chinese weapons manufacturers already are selling armed drones with significant amounts of combat autonomy.” >> China is also interested in using AI for military command decision-making. https://www.technocracy.news/china-releases-fully-autonomous-killer-robots-and-drones-for-combat/ https://www.technocracy.news/china-releases-fully-autonomous...

alkonaut 8y ago

> Are you under the impression that the major powers don't have biological warfare capabilities? No, but that they are extremely careful with using them since it’s considered an extreme escalation to do so even on a small scale. > China uses autonomous killbots in Tibet... Replace “autonomous killbot” with “small tactical nuke” and you see what I’m getting at. They could. But they won’t - because they can accomplish any military goal with conventional means. So why risk the backlash? That’s the kind of threshold I’d like for the deployment of autonomous weapons of this type. And it’s difficult given how easily deniable they are, compared to e.g bioweapons. > ...autonomous cruise missiles... This is an interesting gray area. No one thinks a fuse that ensures a weapon doesn’t blow up a friendly is a bad thing. But we still think of these weapons as being “launched” by a human, even though they can make terminal decisions on their own. I’d draw the line for what’s ethically acceptable at the point where you no longer have a human launch weapons “at” a target but instead launch a weapon to roam. The cruise missiles are still just clever fuses, they don’t linger waiting to autonomously attack ships. The reason this is a gray area and a slippery slope is of course only down to the short flight time of the missiles. If they could fly for a year (like the Russian nuclear experimental missile) then it’s useless against predesignated targets - so effectively a roaming killbot. With current cruise missiles, a human still makes a decision to attack even if it’s only a rough area thought to contain the target. They know what they are trying to attack and there is a human to take the blame if the weapon subsequently makes a mistake and hits a tanker. > ...stockpile millions... Yes. Comparing again to nukes that’s very similar. So would I prefer a world without nukes to one with? Sure. But the best we could do was superpowers stockpiling to ensure mutual destruction. I think that’s the best we can hope for here. I don’t think these weapons won’t be built by the millions, I just hope they will be used reluctantly.

Recurecur 8y ago
(Sorry for the late reply...) > The cruise missiles are still just clever fuses, they don’t linger waiting to autonomously attack ships. That is not correct. The cruise missiles will be given an area to search. They will then traverse that area looking for targets. Anything that matches their programming will be hit. I'm sure they're flexible enough to take orders like "attack any destroyer, cruiser, or aircraft carrier". It will be up to the sensors and software to make sure the target isn't a civilian ship, for instance. > I don’t think these weapons won’t be built by the millions, I just hope they will be used reluctantly. They are already being pitched on the open market by the Chinese: >> The Blowfish A2 “autonomously performs complex combat missions, including fixed-point timing detection and fixed-range reconnaissance, and targeted precision strikes.” >> Depending on customer preferences, Chinese military drone manufacturer Ziyan offers to equip Blowfish A2 with either missiles or machine guns. >> Mr Allen wrote: “Though many current generation drones are primarily remotely operated, Chinese officials generally expect drones and military robotics to feature ever more extensive AI and autonomous capabilities in the future. >> “Chinese weapons manufacturers already are selling armed drones with significant amounts of combat autonomy.” >> China is also interested in using AI for military command decision-making. https://www.technocracy.news/china-releases-fully-autonomous-killer-robots-and-drones-for-combat/ https://www.technocracy.news/china-releases-fully-autonomous...