Biological and chemical weapons are considerably easier to exclude by mutual agreement than AI, because the line is pretty clearly drawn. There is not much of a

Biological and chemical weapons are considerably easier to exclude by mutual agreement than AI, because the line is pretty clearly drawn. There is not much of an incremental path from dropping explosives do dropping gas containers. The line suggested here seems much more arbitrary and would be more like a wide grey area that would be pushed wider and wider into AI territory by including some form of alibi human interaction just as a formality. As described in the open letter, the "forbidden technology" would sit firmly sandwiched between the well established technology of "seek to kill" missiles that are fully autonomus once fired (as opposed to "seek, then autonomously decide to kill or not", which would be forbidden) and teleoperated equipment which is also explicitly allowed. The latter wont be stopped from getting better and better autonomous capabilities by mandating an operator to sign off kill decisions, which will eventually become a meaningless formality. If we want to avoid autonomous weapons, we need a more robust line than the one suggested.