5 ms·

> The ethics of killing will never be left to AI, Ha. I know of a device with a very simple AI program that can tell if an enemy is standing on it. If so, the

> The ethics of killing will never be left to AI, Ha. I know of a device with a very simple AI program that can tell if an enemy is standing on it. If so, the enemy is killed. It’s called a mine. They have been used in every land (and naval) war since they were invented.

ekianjo 6y ago
I don't think mines quality as "AI", unless you stretch the definition to just mean anything under the sun.
- conception 6y ago
  I think they just meant that the military long left the “kill/don’t kill” decision along the wayside despite the propaganda of saying we have someone in control of the kill vector.
  - ekianjo 6y ago
    The whole discussion was about AI as far as I can recall.
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      Mines are being compared as something that makes worse decisions but gets put in charge anyway.
  - krustyburger 6y ago
    I think you’re right and I wish they would have just said that. It’s a good point.
- leafboi 6y ago
  But AI's can qualify as mines. Sending out AI drones is like deploying mines that kill anything within a certain radius.
  - ekianjo 6y ago
    AI supposes a certain level of complexity - if not we just use it a buzzword with virtually no signification.
    - mlyle 6y ago
      You're missing the point. The point is, we have very stupid systems making kill/no-kill decisions today if you step on top of them or drive by them. Slightly smarter systems making kill/no-kill decisions within a designated envelope should not be surprising.
    - leafboi 6y ago
      I'm just saying the ethics of deploying AIs to kill is logically equivalent to deploying mines.
    - supportlocal4h 6y ago
      AI _is_ a buzzword with questionable signification. The level of complexity is arbitrary. Maybe the AI won't blow something up unless it has a heat signature. Maybe it has to detect a pulse. Maybe it won't blow up something that emits a certain beacon. Maybe the kill has to be within a certain timeframe. Maybe the target had to have a certain mass. Which of these considerations qualifies as AI?
- klodolph 6y ago
  That may be a valid technical complaint, but the problem remains—we create devices that are designed to kill humans, autonomously, without human decision inputs. From a different perspective you might think of guns and bombs as having similar problems—a human might decide to pull the trigger, but the human involved has limited control over who is killed and what is destroyed.
  - chrisco255 6y ago
    Well let me know when the mines are walking around and deploying themselves. In the meantime they're not AI.
    - klodolph 6y ago
      Let me know if I understand your priorities correctly—you care about whether the word “AI” is being used correctly, but you are not interested in discussing whether machines are autonomously killing humans? I think this has to be a pretty classic example of the way discourse can get derailed on HN, Stack Overflow, or the like—Alice has an interesting point to make, but Bob takes the floor to point out that Alice used a word incorrectly, even though he knows what Alice meant. The discussion about landmines is actually a good point—the legal language around landmines has evolved somewhat over the years and you might hear them referred to as “LAWs” these days, which stands for “Lethal Autonomous Weapons”. So many of the the same treaties will regulate both autonomous drones and landmines, with the same language.
      - chrisco255 6y ago
        It's not. Landmines aren't placed randomly. They also do not discriminate in what they kill. They are a simple explosive with a step trigger or proximity sensor. That does not an AI make. It completely deludes the definition of AI to call any switch based mechanism an AI. Words and meanings matter and it cannot mean whatever you want it to mean or it loses all capacity to communicate an idea.
        deleted 6y ago
- ip26 6y ago
  There exists an even simpler AI program, wherein an edge is pressed against an object. If done so with sufficient force, the object is cut. This AI is called a knife.
  - kranner 6y ago
    Not a good analogy. The human soldier driving the knife is the agent here, unlike the trigger or tripwire on a landmine.
- etaioinshrdlu 6y ago
  I know of someone who worked on face-recognition AI landmines for the US. They only explode if they recognize you. I don't think anything like that has actually been used though.
  - JackFr 6y ago
    > They only explode if they recognize you. I’d go back and check with product on the requirements for that one. Sounds like the opposite of what I’d want.
    - smabie 6y ago
      Yeah but presumably your own troops know where your land minds are, so having them not explode if they recognized your face would be kind of stupid. I think maybe those landmines are supposed to kill specific targets, and avoid collateral damage.
leafboi 6y ago
You got a point. I think the controversy lies in situations where an AI has to differentiate between threats and innocent bystanders. So really what the OP means is the ethics of what to kill and what to let live should not be left to an AI.
nradov 6y ago
There are naval mines which can detect a vessel nearby and launch an autonomous homing torpedo. All with no human in the loop. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/25235/the-u-s-is-getting-back-into-naval-mine-warfare-with-new-sub-launched-and-air-dropped-types https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/25235/the-u-s-is-getti...
- purple-again 6y ago
  These examples of “no human in the loop” are stretched so wide as to lose all meaning. A human designed the mine to destroy anything that meets the programmed requirements (weight on mine or proximity to mine). You don’t have a case of no human in the loop until that mine is capable of exploding or not exploding and it’s responsible on a case by case basis for deciding which to do.
  - nradov 6y ago
    The naval mine isn't triggered by a simple contact switch. It is capable of launching or not launching the torpedo on a case by case basis depending on pattern matching from multiple sensors.
darkerside 6y ago
I guess that's why must countries have agreed to ban their use https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Treaty https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Treaty
- TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
  With some notable exceptions: United States, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, India, Pakistan, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Iran, Israel, Vietnam,North Korea, South Korea, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Cuba, F.S. Micronesia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Libya, Mongolia, Morocco, Myanmar,Nepal, Syria, Tonga, Uzbekistan. Those countries together represent a significant portion of the global population! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Ottawa_Treaty#Non-signatory_states https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Ottaw...
SilasX 6y ago
They don't have enemy (friend/foe) recognition though, they kill everyone.
- fastball 6y ago
  So, it's worse, right?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
closeparen 6y ago
Is a razor wire fence, then, an autonomous knife?
- TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
  Wouldn't the spear pit, or otherwise camouflaged stake-in-the-ground, pre-date the razor wire fence as an autonomous knife? Or further still, doesn't the camouflaged trap, or non-attendance-required trap of any sort in general, become the original autonomous tool?
burnte 6y ago
So these "mines" don't explode if a friendly is on them, or a child?

ekianjo 6y ago

I don't think mines quality as "AI", unless you stretch the definition to just mean anything under the sun.

conception 6y ago
I think they just meant that the military long left the “kill/don’t kill” decision along the wayside despite the propaganda of saying we have someone in control of the kill vector.
- ekianjo 6y ago
  The whole discussion was about AI as far as I can recall.
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    Mines are being compared as something that makes worse decisions but gets put in charge anyway.
- krustyburger 6y ago
  I think you’re right and I wish they would have just said that. It’s a good point.
leafboi 6y ago
But AI's can qualify as mines. Sending out AI drones is like deploying mines that kill anything within a certain radius.
- ekianjo 6y ago
  AI supposes a certain level of complexity - if not we just use it a buzzword with virtually no signification.
  - mlyle 6y ago
    You're missing the point. The point is, we have very stupid systems making kill/no-kill decisions today if you step on top of them or drive by them. Slightly smarter systems making kill/no-kill decisions within a designated envelope should not be surprising.
  - leafboi 6y ago
    I'm just saying the ethics of deploying AIs to kill is logically equivalent to deploying mines.
  - supportlocal4h 6y ago
    AI _is_ a buzzword with questionable signification. The level of complexity is arbitrary. Maybe the AI won't blow something up unless it has a heat signature. Maybe it has to detect a pulse. Maybe it won't blow up something that emits a certain beacon. Maybe the kill has to be within a certain timeframe. Maybe the target had to have a certain mass. Which of these considerations qualifies as AI?
klodolph 6y ago
That may be a valid technical complaint, but the problem remains—we create devices that are designed to kill humans, autonomously, without human decision inputs. From a different perspective you might think of guns and bombs as having similar problems—a human might decide to pull the trigger, but the human involved has limited control over who is killed and what is destroyed.
- chrisco255 6y ago
  Well let me know when the mines are walking around and deploying themselves. In the meantime they're not AI.
  - klodolph 6y ago
    Let me know if I understand your priorities correctly—you care about whether the word “AI” is being used correctly, but you are not interested in discussing whether machines are autonomously killing humans? I think this has to be a pretty classic example of the way discourse can get derailed on HN, Stack Overflow, or the like—Alice has an interesting point to make, but Bob takes the floor to point out that Alice used a word incorrectly, even though he knows what Alice meant. The discussion about landmines is actually a good point—the legal language around landmines has evolved somewhat over the years and you might hear them referred to as “LAWs” these days, which stands for “Lethal Autonomous Weapons”. So many of the the same treaties will regulate both autonomous drones and landmines, with the same language.
    - chrisco255 6y ago
      It's not. Landmines aren't placed randomly. They also do not discriminate in what they kill. They are a simple explosive with a step trigger or proximity sensor. That does not an AI make. It completely deludes the definition of AI to call any switch based mechanism an AI. Words and meanings matter and it cannot mean whatever you want it to mean or it loses all capacity to communicate an idea.
      - deleted 6y ago
ip26 6y ago
There exists an even simpler AI program, wherein an edge is pressed against an object. If done so with sufficient force, the object is cut. This AI is called a knife.
- kranner 6y ago
  Not a good analogy. The human soldier driving the knife is the agent here, unlike the trigger or tripwire on a landmine.
etaioinshrdlu 6y ago
I know of someone who worked on face-recognition AI landmines for the US. They only explode if they recognize you. I don't think anything like that has actually been used though.
- JackFr 6y ago
  > They only explode if they recognize you. I’d go back and check with product on the requirements for that one. Sounds like the opposite of what I’d want.
  - smabie 6y ago
    Yeah but presumably your own troops know where your land minds are, so having them not explode if they recognized your face would be kind of stupid. I think maybe those landmines are supposed to kill specific targets, and avoid collateral damage.

leafboi 6y ago

You got a point. I think the controversy lies in situations where an AI has to differentiate between threats and innocent bystanders. So really what the OP means is the ethics of what to kill and what to let live should not be left to an AI.

nradov 6y ago

There are naval mines which can detect a vessel nearby and launch an autonomous homing torpedo. All with no human in the loop. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/25235/the-u-s-is-getting-back-into-naval-mine-warfare-with-new-sub-launched-and-air-dropped-types https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/25235/the-u-s-is-getti...

purple-again 6y ago
These examples of “no human in the loop” are stretched so wide as to lose all meaning. A human designed the mine to destroy anything that meets the programmed requirements (weight on mine or proximity to mine). You don’t have a case of no human in the loop until that mine is capable of exploding or not exploding and it’s responsible on a case by case basis for deciding which to do.
- nradov 6y ago
  The naval mine isn't triggered by a simple contact switch. It is capable of launching or not launching the torpedo on a case by case basis depending on pattern matching from multiple sensors.

darkerside 6y ago

I guess that's why must countries have agreed to ban their use https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Treaty https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Treaty

TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
With some notable exceptions: United States, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, India, Pakistan, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Iran, Israel, Vietnam,North Korea, South Korea, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Cuba, F.S. Micronesia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Libya, Mongolia, Morocco, Myanmar,Nepal, Syria, Tonga, Uzbekistan. Those countries together represent a significant portion of the global population! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Ottawa_Treaty#Non-signatory_states https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Ottaw...

SilasX 6y ago

They don't have enemy (friend/foe) recognition though, they kill everyone.

fastball 6y ago
So, it's worse, right?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

closeparen 6y ago

Is a razor wire fence, then, an autonomous knife?

TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
Wouldn't the spear pit, or otherwise camouflaged stake-in-the-ground, pre-date the razor wire fence as an autonomous knife? Or further still, doesn't the camouflaged trap, or non-attendance-required trap of any sort in general, become the original autonomous tool?

burnte 6y ago

So these "mines" don't explode if a friendly is on them, or a child?