Maybe we can petition.
Or start building anti drone capabilities.
Slaughterbots: Stop Autonomous Weapons [video]
61–70 of 134 posts
Re: Slaughterbots: Stop Autonomous Weapons [video]
#62The message of this film feels extremely confused - probably because it's trying to single-mindedly push an agenda rather then explore the problem space. In a world where apparently drone-swarms are this cheap...what, no one ever developed counter-drones? It's the reason grey goo isn't a realistic scenario for nanotechnology: the goo has to replicate, whereas all the counter-goo has to do is kill it. Same issue: a wo…
I don't think "people will invent countermeasures" is a particularly good argument. We have countermeasures against chemical weapons - but not everyone has them all the time. We would still be better off if we hadn't opened that pandora's box.
For an eight minute video, it does a decent job of exploring the consequences of a weapon that can kill remotely, with minimal collateral damage, and with no supervision. They touch on potential use against terrorists, political opponents, and activists. The main point being that once you release thing into the wild, you have little control over how it will be used.
Re: Slaughterbots: Stop Autonomous Weapons [video]
#63It's like WWI all over again. In WWI, people went happily off to war thinking it's going to be nice and heroic and adventurous like the good old days and they all get slaughtered in a pathetic pointless way in a blink of an eye by newly developed automated war machinery. The first AI War is going to be a really brutal wakeup call. The part in sci-fi where anyone actually has to aim to kill an enemy was a big romantic…
it also seems that most people are too optimistic with regards to involvement of robots and ai in war. first of all an asymmetric kill power distribution will lead to asymmetric war anyway - that's what is referred to as terrorism. if an opponent has no chance fighting a 1on1 battle they will resort to planting bombs in malls. and the idea that robots Will fight for humans is also very naive because if the robots are done on one side then humans will be back fighting.
Re: Slaughterbots: Stop Autonomous Weapons [video]
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would guess: we ban civilian drones from carrying explosives, nerve-toxins and other weapons; we invest the bulk of research effort in developing anti-drone drones. The anti-drone drones don't carry weapons that can be used against humans. Advanced drone tech would be less like nuclear weapons, against which there is no defence, and more like vaccines or antidotes. Which is morally very different. Actually morality…
You can make any laws. But how exactly do you enforce them? Civilians manufacture and own drones, 3d printers are consumer products now, there are incredibly affordable electronic kits (e.g: Raspberry Pi)... then, for computer vision and AI you've got a lot of free toolkits to pick from... it will be challenging to effectively prevent it even if legislation forbids it.
The bulk of the effort goes into R&D for anti-drone tech (this includes monitoring what the bad guys are up to).
Re: Slaughterbots: Stop Autonomous Weapons [video]
#65The message of this film feels extremely confused - probably because it's trying to single-mindedly push an agenda rather then explore the problem space. In a world where apparently drone-swarms are this cheap...what, no one ever developed counter-drones? It's the reason grey goo isn't a realistic scenario for nanotechnology: the goo has to replicate, whereas all the counter-goo has to do is kill it. Same issue: a wo…
to develop countermeasures is always way harder than developing an assaulting technology. like firing a rocket is easy, but catching it mid flight is very difficult.
Re: Slaughterbots: Stop Autonomous Weapons [video]
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the proposed ban is: don't develop weapons with software that can make the killing decisions without humans in the loop. That itself isn't so impossible a ban to make something like the CWC out of, but nations couldn't even stop 3D gun printing, despite the same sort of worries. Additionally, even with that ban, you could have the exact same video with the minor difference that each drone sends its video stre…
You can't really ban software. Sooner or later someone will write it, opensource it, and it will be on GitHub/piratebay.
It's probably impossible to stop someone weaponising a drone and piloting it with AI. But you can control how well the result is executed.
If a computer scientist teamed up with an engineer and a chemist they could probably jerry rig something that would work. Sort of. But if Northrop Grumman tried to build these things with a billion dollar budget behind them, they might actually succeed in replicating the drones in the video.
Re: Slaughterbots: Stop Autonomous Weapons [video]
#67Unfortunately I don't see a way this can be avoided.There has never been a weapon humanity imagined, designed, and built that it has not used. AI will be no different. A ban would be impossible to implement. What exactly would you ban? AI? Drones? facial recognition? Once you have a certain level of capability in these technologies, weaponising these things is the easy part.
a hydrogen bomb has never been used.
Re: Slaughterbots: Stop Autonomous Weapons [video]
#68Magnificent piece of technology! Except it gets defeated by a 2$ skimask. This kind of fearmongering isn't really useful as a way of creating political change. If you want people to participate in a reasonable and constructive dialog then convince them to do so with reasonble and constructive arguments.
Re: Slaughterbots: Stop Autonomous Weapons [video]
#69The message of this film feels extremely confused - probably because it's trying to single-mindedly push an agenda rather then explore the problem space. In a world where apparently drone-swarms are this cheap...what, no one ever developed counter-drones? It's the reason grey goo isn't a realistic scenario for nanotechnology: the goo has to replicate, whereas all the counter-goo has to do is kill it. Same issue: a wo…
Counter-goo also has to self-replicate, or otherwise be available in huge quantities.
The only currently existing self-replicating nanotech is called “life”, and plenty of that has been getting in our way for as long as there has been an us to get in the way of.
Unless you count bootstraping on existing life, I have it on good authority (someone with a PhD in material science from Cambridge) that nobody knows how to make fully self-replicating devices yet, not even clanking replicators.
As for drones… well, I can think of terrible ways to weaponise them, how to defend drones from simple counter-attacks, and then how to use that counter attack mechanism as city-wide anti-drone tech, but in the medium-likelyhood event that my ideas are not fundamentally flawed, I don’t want to give people ideas.
Re: Slaughterbots: Stop Autonomous Weapons [video]
#70Unfortunately I don't see a way this can be avoided.There has never been a weapon humanity imagined, designed, and built that it has not used. AI will be no different. A ban would be impossible to implement. What exactly would you ban? AI? Drones? facial recognition? Once you have a certain level of capability in these technologies, weaponising these things is the easy part.
We can make it considered unacceptable and against international law. Like chemical weapons. Which still happen, but not as much as they would if the U.S were, say, planning on using them all over the place, doing heavy R&D into them, and selling them to other people. Like, you know, robot kill bots.
How would you write such a treaty? Limit the CPU speed of weapons systems or something? Totally unenforceable.