The critical feature is less about AI and more about sufficient autonomy (for the weapon's goal) and the lack of traceability that emerges as a consequence of t

The critical feature is less about AI and more about sufficient autonomy (for the weapon's goal) and the lack of traceability that emerges as a consequence of that. If I have a non-autonomous weapon, it's tied to a person, and therefore to an owner. Maybe tenuously (RF/laser), but there's boots on the ground and a link. Which creates a risk of attribution and consequences for the deployer (nation-state or otherwise). If I have an autonomous weapon, I can design one that's untraceable for practical purposes. Which removes an adversary's ability to attribute it to me. Which removes my risk for deploying it. Or as the article puts it... >> "If you're having arms control, you need to have some process of validation" If autonomous DJI-alike drones began flying into local substation transformers with small explosives (just need to breach the oil containment). Or AUVs blowing holes in commercial shipping off a country's coasts. Who's responsible? How would you begin to find out? And without knowing, how would you respond? There's a reason the US invested so heavily in nuclear attribution technology (i.e. nuke sniffing aircraft). Deterrence starts with "If you do this, we will find out it's you and then..." Low-cost sufficient autonomy removes that.