4 ms·

I think an underappreciated danger of "killer robots" is that they allow converting capital directly into precise violent force without the need for some signif

I think an underappreciated danger of "killer robots" is that they allow converting capital directly into precise violent force without the need for some significant portion of the population tacitly approving by participating. E.g. a hundred years ago you could only convert cash into violence by recruiting and paying ordinary people. You couldn't wage a war that the people didn't want because people wouldn't sign up. Fifty years ago you could convert cash into indiscriminate violence with bombing campaigns, but you still needed the people if you wanted to invade instead of just destroying. Killer robots shake that up, and I fear brings us one step closer to the apocalyptic "corporation-nations" of scifi. I don't think it's likely at this juncture, but corporations sitting on cash could wage war on each other or other nations. Chiquita doesn't need the CIA to do their dirty work, they can just invade Nicaragua with an army of autonomous robots. Wealth is now directly translatable into force, which is somewhat terrifying.

gibbitz 3y ago
And the liberal elite will have to pry my murderbot from my cold dead hands! Seriously, defending these under the second ammendment will happen as soon as industry realizes they can bring down the price thenmore they make and they can charge more in the private sector. Think about the mass shootings that will happen when the shooter isn't even there -- or the shooter is backed up by a team of murderbots...
- everforward 3y ago
  I suspect they won't be protected. The phrasing is "the right to keep and bear arms", and there's a salient argument that because the robot is autonomous, it is the one bearing arms, not the human. Robots have no right to bear arms. A similar argument to the copyright office saying that AI generated stuff can't be copyrighted because the AI can't hold copyright. Another interesting corollary is whether EMP/jamming devices will be considered arms under the 2nd amendment if autonomous robots become common on the battlefield.
  - akomtu 3y ago
    When you say that robots have no rights, you imply that robots aren't people. And that's common sense today. But even today there's a non-trivial number of scientists who believe that we are just complex mechanism, and our consciousness is no more mysterious than dynamics of a sufficuently complex machine. If this idea of mechanical consciousness takes hold and spreads, in a few decades the supreme court will be considering a case, backed by solid scientific foundation, that "natural persons are fundamentally machines, and so machines created on american soil must be granted the same rights as natural persons."
    - hnlmorg 3y ago
      Most people in US politics don’t hold that view though. As demonstrated by the frequent opposition to abortion. So long as religion plays a fundamental part of political rallying, I can’t see enough people following the logic that AI deserves rights too. To be honest, as someone who isn’t religious myself and who does believe our consciousness is mechanical, I’m also yet to be persuaded that AI is even remotely sophisticated enough for right. And I don’t think we will see AGI in my lifetime either.
  - vibrio 3y ago
    I suspect with a disinterested Congress and an apolitical Supreme Court, wringing hands over interpretation of the intended meaning of words might be predictive of legal outcomes.
  - someguydave 3y ago
    By this logic if my killer robot murdered someone then I am not responsible.
  - nradov 3y ago
    EMP weapons are science fiction. There is no plausible means of using a portable device to produce an EMP powerful enough to damage electronics. Portable jammers exist today, but are very short ranged. And obviously those aren't effective against autonomous systems.
cpgxiii 3y ago
> into precise violent force without the need for some significant portion of the population tacitly approving by participating This has existed for years in the form of "foreign legions". Arguably French foreign policy in Africa would have been quite different without the FFL. > Fifty years ago you could convert cash into indiscriminate violence with bombing campaigns, you still needed the people if you wanted to invade instead of just destroying None of these developments in "intelligent" weapons has moved beyond the "destroy" category. You still need boots on the ground to have any hope of building personal relationships in counterinsurgency and "nationbuilding". > corporations sitting on cash could wage war on each other or other nations We have already seen non-state entities wage "war" on other countries. It hasn't changed the fundamentals of international relations. Either (a) the "host" country condones the actions, at which point the actions are an act of war against the victim, or (b) the "host" cooperates in taking action against the non-state actor, or (c) the "host" is so weak that the non-state entity is the de facto "state". I don't see a realistic case where this behavior spreads beyond the very weak "states" in which it has already happened - functional states will not surrender their sovereignty to companies.

gibbitz 3y ago

And the liberal elite will have to pry my murderbot from my cold dead hands! Seriously, defending these under the second ammendment will happen as soon as industry realizes they can bring down the price thenmore they make and they can charge more in the private sector. Think about the mass shootings that will happen when the shooter isn't even there -- or the shooter is backed up by a team of murderbots...

everforward 3y ago
I suspect they won't be protected. The phrasing is "the right to keep and bear arms", and there's a salient argument that because the robot is autonomous, it is the one bearing arms, not the human. Robots have no right to bear arms. A similar argument to the copyright office saying that AI generated stuff can't be copyrighted because the AI can't hold copyright. Another interesting corollary is whether EMP/jamming devices will be considered arms under the 2nd amendment if autonomous robots become common on the battlefield.
- akomtu 3y ago
  When you say that robots have no rights, you imply that robots aren't people. And that's common sense today. But even today there's a non-trivial number of scientists who believe that we are just complex mechanism, and our consciousness is no more mysterious than dynamics of a sufficuently complex machine. If this idea of mechanical consciousness takes hold and spreads, in a few decades the supreme court will be considering a case, backed by solid scientific foundation, that "natural persons are fundamentally machines, and so machines created on american soil must be granted the same rights as natural persons."
  - hnlmorg 3y ago
    Most people in US politics don’t hold that view though. As demonstrated by the frequent opposition to abortion. So long as religion plays a fundamental part of political rallying, I can’t see enough people following the logic that AI deserves rights too. To be honest, as someone who isn’t religious myself and who does believe our consciousness is mechanical, I’m also yet to be persuaded that AI is even remotely sophisticated enough for right. And I don’t think we will see AGI in my lifetime either.
- vibrio 3y ago
  I suspect with a disinterested Congress and an apolitical Supreme Court, wringing hands over interpretation of the intended meaning of words might be predictive of legal outcomes.
- someguydave 3y ago
  By this logic if my killer robot murdered someone then I am not responsible.
- nradov 3y ago
  EMP weapons are science fiction. There is no plausible means of using a portable device to produce an EMP powerful enough to damage electronics. Portable jammers exist today, but are very short ranged. And obviously those aren't effective against autonomous systems.

cpgxiii 3y ago

> into precise violent force without the need for some significant portion of the population tacitly approving by participating This has existed for years in the form of "foreign legions". Arguably French foreign policy in Africa would have been quite different without the FFL. > Fifty years ago you could convert cash into indiscriminate violence with bombing campaigns, you still needed the people if you wanted to invade instead of just destroying None of these developments in "intelligent" weapons has moved beyond the "destroy" category. You still need boots on the ground to have any hope of building personal relationships in counterinsurgency and "nationbuilding". > corporations sitting on cash could wage war on each other or other nations We have already seen non-state entities wage "war" on other countries. It hasn't changed the fundamentals of international relations. Either (a) the "host" country condones the actions, at which point the actions are an act of war against the victim, or (b) the "host" cooperates in taking action against the non-state actor, or (c) the "host" is so weak that the non-state entity is the de facto "state". I don't see a realistic case where this behavior spreads beyond the very weak "states" in which it has already happened - functional states will not surrender their sovereignty to companies.