Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned
spectrum.ieee.org
Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned
1–10 of 186 posts
Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned
#2The problem with arms races is that they are races: no one wants to be left behind.
What is likely to happen is any major nation-state that signs a treaty agreeing to a ban will STILL secretly be researching and building autonomous (or nearly autonomous) weapon systems because they do not want to be left behind.
Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned
#3The problem with arms races is that they are races: no one wants to be left behind. What is likely to happen is any major nation-state that signs a treaty agreeing to a ban will STILL secretly be researching and building autonomous (or nearly autonomous) weapon systems because they do not want to be left behind.
I would add that it's also very difficult to study and develop countermeasures without cultivating cutting-edge knowledge of how such weapons are designed, built and operated. Doing that means you eventually need field data. The slope is extremely slippery, but it's also dangerous not to traverse it.
Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned
#4The problem with arms races is that they are races: no one wants to be left behind. What is likely to happen is any major nation-state that signs a treaty agreeing to a ban will STILL secretly be researching and building autonomous (or nearly autonomous) weapon systems because they do not want to be left behind.
They also need to research them to learn how to counter them if an enemy does use them. Given that most of the conflicts of the last few decades were not with states but with groups the chance of someone using them is high. Especially as technology becomes more accessible.
Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned
#5The problem with arms races is that they are races: no one wants to be left behind. What is likely to happen is any major nation-state that signs a treaty agreeing to a ban will STILL secretly be researching and building autonomous (or nearly autonomous) weapon systems because they do not want to be left behind.
It would be a disaster to enter a military conflict with an adversary that has autonomous weapons if you don’t have at least effective countermeasures yourself.
I suppose nuclear states could in principle rest on their laurels, but at least from a layman’s perspective it doesn’t give an impression of being strategically sound.
But obviously it’s a scary rabbit hole to enter. It’s not fun when game-theoretical considerations or human nature seems to make dubious technological developments inevitable.
Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned
#6The problem with arms races is that they are races: no one wants to be left behind. What is likely to happen is any major nation-state that signs a treaty agreeing to a ban will STILL secretly be researching and building autonomous (or nearly autonomous) weapon systems because they do not want to be left behind.
Winner will be the one who will design biological equivalents - genetically modified eagles or something similar.
Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned
#7I, for one, welcome our murderbot overlords. If we can't stop using drones to kill people, we should at least try to reduce collateral damage. With some advancements autonomous drones could be more precise and reliable than human operated ones, meaning that as an outcome fewer weddings will get blown up.
Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned
#8The problem with arms races is that they are races: no one wants to be left behind. What is likely to happen is any major nation-state that signs a treaty agreeing to a ban will STILL secretly be researching and building autonomous (or nearly autonomous) weapon systems because they do not want to be left behind.
I would add that it's also very difficult to study and develop countermeasures without cultivating cutting-edge knowledge of how such weapons are designed, built and operated. Doing that means you eventually need field data. The slope is extremely slippery, but it's also dangerous not to traverse it.
Agreed. We've already trod this ground with chemical weapons, so at least we have a template when we follow it once more with autonomous weapons.
Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned
#9I, for one, welcome our murderbot overlords. If we can't stop using drones to kill people, we should at least try to reduce collateral damage. With some advancements autonomous drones could be more precise and reliable than human operated ones, meaning that as an outcome fewer weddings will get blown up.
And if fewer weddings get blown up, we'll use them more and more to kill people. I wonder whether the absolute number of killings will go up or down this way.
Re: Lethal Autonomous Weapons Exist; They Must Be Banned
#10I, for one, welcome our murderbot overlords. If we can't stop using drones to kill people, we should at least try to reduce collateral damage. With some advancements autonomous drones could be more precise and reliable than human operated ones, meaning that as an outcome fewer weddings will get blown up.
But we can stop using drones to kill people, we choose not to. Instead, we see drones as a measure to lower the operational cost of killing people allowing us to kill people simply because they are there.