3 ms·

We all pretty much agree here that autonomous cars are safer and make better decisions than human-driven ones. Why wouldn't the same hold true of weapons? The

We all pretty much agree here that autonomous cars are safer and make better decisions than human-driven ones. Why wouldn't the same hold true of weapons? There seems to be a philosophical distaste to letting machines decide whether or not to kill humans, but if the upshot is that fewer innocents and more legitimate targets are killed for less money, then I'm not sure what the problem is. Humans are bad decision-makers at the best of times. Add in the stresses of combat and we're downright lousy. Why shouldn't we offload that decision-making to machines that can do it better than us?

ZenoArrow 11y ago
What makes you suspect that AI complex enough to weigh up decisions on life and death is not complex enough to develop its own self interest? Can we just face up to the reality that more weapons = more potential abuse of weapons, as there's no such thing as a perfectly moral user.
- redthrowaway 11y ago
  >What makes you suspect that AI complex enough to weigh up decisions on life and death is not complex enough to develop its own self interest? Because it's fundamentally no different from self-driving cars, which have yet to form labour unions demanding better work conditions. Nothing in autonomous weaponry comes close to hard AI. It's all decision-making rubrics that are well within the bounds of current technology.
  - ZenoArrow 11y ago
    It is fundamentally different, as we're talking about leaving decisions on who to kill to machines, we're not talking about how to kill, but who to kill. You may think it's easy decision for an AI to make (whilst still maintaining the fairness we seek for this AI to embody), but I would argue otherwise. Self-driving cars are an interesting comparison. Let's say you had three self driving cars that were about to be involved in an accident, with Car 1 travelling towards Car 2 and Car 3 on a narrow mountain pass. There is no action that the cars can take that prevents the death of all passengers, but if Car 1 swerves off the road, unavoidably killing those in this car, the passengers of Car 2 and Car 3 are likely to be saved. What does the AI of Car 1 do?
    - redthrowaway 11y ago
      You're speaking philosophically, rubbing shoulders with trollyology. I'm speaking from a technical level. Saying autonomous weapons will Skynet us and lead to the great robot uprising is like saying the paint on your walls will coalesce into a Rembrandt. Consciousness, or Hard AI, is not an emergent property of autonomous decision-making, or Soft AI.
      - ZenoArrow 11y ago
        Trollyology, cute. Soft AI requires stricter rules to follow than hard AI. Strict rules for self-driving cars are fairly straightforward (for the most part), as reasonably clear information on how effectively a car is being driven is readily available to the driver. What strict rules would you follow when designing an AI with the means and authority to kill?
        redthrowaway 11y ago
        >Trollyology, cute. It's a thing, although I misspelled "trolley". I wasn't intending to imply trolling on your part. [1,2] >What strict rules would you follow when designing an AI with the means and authority to kill? The same ones we have for humans with the means and authority to kill. [3] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/books/review/would-you-kill-the-fat-man-and-the-trolley-problem.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/books/review/would-you-kil... [3] https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/7b0d0f70-bb07-48f2-af0a-7474e92d0bb0/San-Remo-ROE-Handbook https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/7b0d0f70-bb07-48f2-af0a-... (pdf)
        ZenoArrow 11y ago
        > "It's a thing, although I misspelled "trolley". I wasn't intending to imply trolling on your part. [1,2]" Ah I see. Yes, the trolley problem, didn't know it was called that, but that's what I meant. Thanks for the links. It's a problem that is applicable amongst all types of drivers, but the issue with autonomous drivers is that you have the choice to program for it in the AI. The question then becomes what is the best way to handle it? Furthermore, if you do try to minimise deaths, how do you communicate to the other autonomous drivers that they should not also self-sacrifice? > "The same ones we have for humans with the means and authority to kill. [3]" Let's discuss something concrete from that handbook... "the right to use force in self-defence arises in response to a hostile act (attack) and/or demonstrated hostile intent (threat of imminent attack)" How does an AI determine hostile intent? Reading the intent of humans is a complex task, depending on a wide range of cues (visual, verbal, physical, historical, societal). Can we design an AI that can read all these cues better than a human? Do you expect this to be easy to program?
mrtron 11y ago
Autonomous cars will for sure be more efficient on safety and decision making. What I think they are warning against is the potential efficiency of AI machines at war. Wars could happen in minutes instead of years. You mention more legitimate targets being killed and fewer innocents, but how are those being defined? There has been multiple points in history where the set of 'legitimate targets' by a group was defined by everyone not in their group.
- redthrowaway 11y ago
  >how are those being defined? The same way they are now. The military's RoE, being a result of a massive bureaucracy, lends itself well to autonomous decision-making. The RoE are still determined by humans.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

ZenoArrow 11y ago

What makes you suspect that AI complex enough to weigh up decisions on life and death is not complex enough to develop its own self interest? Can we just face up to the reality that more weapons = more potential abuse of weapons, as there's no such thing as a perfectly moral user.

redthrowaway 11y ago
>What makes you suspect that AI complex enough to weigh up decisions on life and death is not complex enough to develop its own self interest? Because it's fundamentally no different from self-driving cars, which have yet to form labour unions demanding better work conditions. Nothing in autonomous weaponry comes close to hard AI. It's all decision-making rubrics that are well within the bounds of current technology.
- ZenoArrow 11y ago
  It is fundamentally different, as we're talking about leaving decisions on who to kill to machines, we're not talking about how to kill, but who to kill. You may think it's easy decision for an AI to make (whilst still maintaining the fairness we seek for this AI to embody), but I would argue otherwise. Self-driving cars are an interesting comparison. Let's say you had three self driving cars that were about to be involved in an accident, with Car 1 travelling towards Car 2 and Car 3 on a narrow mountain pass. There is no action that the cars can take that prevents the death of all passengers, but if Car 1 swerves off the road, unavoidably killing those in this car, the passengers of Car 2 and Car 3 are likely to be saved. What does the AI of Car 1 do?
  - redthrowaway 11y ago
    You're speaking philosophically, rubbing shoulders with trollyology. I'm speaking from a technical level. Saying autonomous weapons will Skynet us and lead to the great robot uprising is like saying the paint on your walls will coalesce into a Rembrandt. Consciousness, or Hard AI, is not an emergent property of autonomous decision-making, or Soft AI.
    - ZenoArrow 11y ago
      Trollyology, cute. Soft AI requires stricter rules to follow than hard AI. Strict rules for self-driving cars are fairly straightforward (for the most part), as reasonably clear information on how effectively a car is being driven is readily available to the driver. What strict rules would you follow when designing an AI with the means and authority to kill?
      - redthrowaway 11y ago
        >Trollyology, cute. It's a thing, although I misspelled "trolley". I wasn't intending to imply trolling on your part. [1,2] >What strict rules would you follow when designing an AI with the means and authority to kill? The same ones we have for humans with the means and authority to kill. [3] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/books/review/would-you-kill-the-fat-man-and-the-trolley-problem.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/books/review/would-you-kil... [3] https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/7b0d0f70-bb07-48f2-af0a-7474e92d0bb0/San-Remo-ROE-Handbook https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/7b0d0f70-bb07-48f2-af0a-... (pdf)
        ZenoArrow 11y ago
        > "It's a thing, although I misspelled "trolley". I wasn't intending to imply trolling on your part. [1,2]" Ah I see. Yes, the trolley problem, didn't know it was called that, but that's what I meant. Thanks for the links. It's a problem that is applicable amongst all types of drivers, but the issue with autonomous drivers is that you have the choice to program for it in the AI. The question then becomes what is the best way to handle it? Furthermore, if you do try to minimise deaths, how do you communicate to the other autonomous drivers that they should not also self-sacrifice? > "The same ones we have for humans with the means and authority to kill. [3]" Let's discuss something concrete from that handbook... "the right to use force in self-defence arises in response to a hostile act (attack) and/or demonstrated hostile intent (threat of imminent attack)" How does an AI determine hostile intent? Reading the intent of humans is a complex task, depending on a wide range of cues (visual, verbal, physical, historical, societal). Can we design an AI that can read all these cues better than a human? Do you expect this to be easy to program?

mrtron 11y ago

Autonomous cars will for sure be more efficient on safety and decision making. What I think they are warning against is the potential efficiency of AI machines at war. Wars could happen in minutes instead of years. You mention more legitimate targets being killed and fewer innocents, but how are those being defined? There has been multiple points in history where the set of 'legitimate targets' by a group was defined by everyone not in their group.

redthrowaway 11y ago
>how are those being defined? The same way they are now. The military's RoE, being a result of a massive bureaucracy, lends itself well to autonomous decision-making. The RoE are still determined by humans.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]