3 ms·
A international treaty would probably not work well, since military drones are actually useful for combat. Unlike biological weapons, were the victim has two we
by yk 14y ago
A international treaty would probably not work well, since military drones are actually useful for combat. Unlike biological weapons, were the victim has two weeks of incubation period to defeat you, or chemical weapons, which are quite useless against hardened targets. ( And since WWII there was no conflict which came close to the nuclear threshold.) Therefore an AI arms control regime would be a lot harder to construct than a WMD one.
Having said that, I am actually not very pessimistic about drones. I think that they are similar to cars, which enable a quick get away for the perpetrators of a crime, but are in fact more dangerous in accidents than as means of a crime. ( And similar, if there are thousands of pizza delivery drones then some of them will fall out of the sky by pure statistics.)
- jrochkind1 14y agolandmines are useful for combat too. Oh yeah, the US refuses to sign that one too, right? If it wasn't useful for combat, nobody would use it, right? You only need international law to try and prevent things that _are_ useful in military objectives, but are so dangerous to humanity that we wish to prevent their use.