4 ms·

> That promise will go out the window just as soon as other nations arm ai enabled drones with anti air missiles. Ethics don't go out the window because of aut

> That promise will go out the window just as soon as other nations arm ai enabled drones with anti air missiles. Ethics don't go out the window because of autonomy. It's dark, but it's not somehow easy to shrug off as "ok no human then no ethics". We already have semi-autonomous weapons such as CIWS (Goalkeeper/Phalanx) which are autonomous because it's very tedious for a human to sit idle and wait for threats and then it's really hard to hit them. Perfect job for a robot. But the ethical job of the human in that case is ensuring that the weapon isn't armed if there is too high risk of collateral damage (These sit on ships, typically, so a human decides whether it's safe to arm the weapon given the situation around the vessel). The dumbest autonomous weapons are mines, they are hundreds of years old. The ethical decision is made when laying down the mine, not when the explosion is triggered. So yes it's a slippery slope, but the "human in the loop" isn't only ethical when it's the kill decision. There is a "human in the loop" when laying a mine too. The ethics involved consists of weighing the risk of killing the wrong target, properly documenting where they are planted and so on. There is no human "in the loop" at the time the mine kills someone. But that doesn't somehow throw ethics out the window. The person deploying the mine - or the slaughterbot - is the person in the loop. > In 20 years time we'll probably have aircraft that do figure eights over enemy territory for hours before automatically engaging 'military aged males'. I think that is unlikely, but possibly "armed" personnel. We already have craft that do figure eights for hours before automatically engaging specific signatures of vehicles (if we'd want to). And as I said, even artillery shells do this. But yes, finding a concentration of troops and deciding whether they are soldiers/civilian isn't even 20 years away.

Groxx 4y ago
I'm pretty sure they were claiming that ethics go out the window when threatened, and it will probably lead to using AI in a problematic way because it's easy to see it as a quick win (via improved autonomy), and once it's out there it tends to stay in use. Not that autonomy leads to ethics taking a break. The latter may also be true, but that wasn't what they were claiming.
merely-unlikely 4y ago
On your point about land mines, antipersonnel variants have actually been banned by the UN for a while now - "Anti-personnel landmines are prohibited under the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (or Mine Ban Convention), adopted in 1997."[1] As you say, the ethics debate isn't really new. [1] https://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/landmines/ https://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/landmines/
- scottLobster 4y ago
  Yeah, but I think historically that's going to be an anomaly brought on by the unipolar moment of US/Western military dominance, not a moment of ethical enlightenment. The US and its allies were so dominant that they didn't really need landmines to win anymore, and landmines are one of the cheapest effective deterrents their potential enemies could use. So it became yet another requirement for acceptance into the "rules based order" that just coincidentally benefits those enforcing the rules over those who have a different ethical perspective. I'm not saying we should bring landmines back, but "human in the loop" AI warfare will only work so long as our AI maintains the same relative military dominance we've enjoyed for the last few decades. The moment an AI squadron gets wiped out because the human approval couldn't come fast enough, it'll go right out the window.
  - mig39 4y ago
    > The US and its allies were so dominant that they didn't really need landmines to win anymore, and landmines are one of the cheapest effective deterrents their potential enemies could use. If the US doesn't need landmines, why won't the US ban them? The United States is one of the nations that hasn't signed the Ottawa Treaty?
    - LarryMullins 4y ago
      The US does need landmines. Obama and Biden both committed to reducing America's use of landmines, but both made an exemption for use in Korea.
CDRdude 4y ago
There is a dark joke that I think is appropriate here: Q: What’s the difference between a wedding and a group of insurgents? A: I dunno man, I just fly the drone.
xg15 4y ago
Computer-controlled weapons have far more opportunity to diffuse responsibility and shift the blame. Notice how often "algorithms" are already used in civilian context as a wall to hide behind. This will only get worse with autonomous weapons.

Groxx 4y ago

I'm pretty sure they were claiming that ethics go out the window when threatened, and it will probably lead to using AI in a problematic way because it's easy to see it as a quick win (via improved autonomy), and once it's out there it tends to stay in use. Not that autonomy leads to ethics taking a break. The latter may also be true, but that wasn't what they were claiming.

merely-unlikely 4y ago

On your point about land mines, antipersonnel variants have actually been banned by the UN for a while now - "Anti-personnel landmines are prohibited under the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (or Mine Ban Convention), adopted in 1997."[1] As you say, the ethics debate isn't really new. [1] https://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/landmines/ https://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/landmines/

scottLobster 4y ago
Yeah, but I think historically that's going to be an anomaly brought on by the unipolar moment of US/Western military dominance, not a moment of ethical enlightenment. The US and its allies were so dominant that they didn't really need landmines to win anymore, and landmines are one of the cheapest effective deterrents their potential enemies could use. So it became yet another requirement for acceptance into the "rules based order" that just coincidentally benefits those enforcing the rules over those who have a different ethical perspective. I'm not saying we should bring landmines back, but "human in the loop" AI warfare will only work so long as our AI maintains the same relative military dominance we've enjoyed for the last few decades. The moment an AI squadron gets wiped out because the human approval couldn't come fast enough, it'll go right out the window.
- mig39 4y ago
  > The US and its allies were so dominant that they didn't really need landmines to win anymore, and landmines are one of the cheapest effective deterrents their potential enemies could use. If the US doesn't need landmines, why won't the US ban them? The United States is one of the nations that hasn't signed the Ottawa Treaty?
  - LarryMullins 4y ago
    The US does need landmines. Obama and Biden both committed to reducing America's use of landmines, but both made an exemption for use in Korea.

CDRdude 4y ago

There is a dark joke that I think is appropriate here: Q: What’s the difference between a wedding and a group of insurgents? A: I dunno man, I just fly the drone.

xg15 4y ago

Computer-controlled weapons have far more opportunity to diffuse responsibility and shift the blame. Notice how often "algorithms" are already used in civilian context as a wall to hide behind. This will only get worse with autonomous weapons.