7 ms·

A couple quick ideas for political activism against autonomous weapons: The "Stop Killer Robots" campaign: https://www.stopkillerrobots.org/ https://www.stopki

A couple quick ideas for political activism against autonomous weapons: The "Stop Killer Robots" campaign: https://www.stopkillerrobots.org/ https://www.stopkillerrobots.org/ Asking your nation to support the upcoming UN General Assembly resolution against autonomous weapons: https://www.stopkillerrobots.org/news/unga-resolution-on-autonomous-weapons-systems-gives-states-historic-opportunity-to-voteagainstthemachine/ https://www.stopkillerrobots.org/news/unga-resolution-on-aut... And having personal conversations with your friends in technology and defense industries who may contribute to these technologies.

nradov 3y ago
Bad idea. We should be encouraging development of autonomous weapons in order to reduce risks to US and allied military personnel in future conflicts.
- jfim 3y ago
  The problem with that approach is that it also makes conflicts more likely if there are no drawbacks to deployment of such weapons. There's a lot of push back to deploying human soldiers in a conflict, but much less so for remotely controlled drones. It's likely that AI bots would have even less domestic pressure to avoid conflicts.
  - OkayPhysicist 3y ago
    So we should be endangering young American's lives in a twisted blood sacrifice to the maintenance of peace? Ridiculous. If the Cold War taught us anything, it's that peace is bought with the power to annihilate anyone who chooses to break it. And to extend the Cold War analogy, sovereignty is only real to the countries with the military prowess to uphold it. A peaceful world is one where war is too risky for the decision makers, not the soldiers.
    - jfim 3y ago
      > A peaceful world is one where war is too risky for the decision makers, not the soldiers. My point is that drones and autonomous weapons make it less risky for decision makers to engage in war, hence making it less peaceful.
    - Animatronio 3y ago
      Is anyone seriously threatening the US? I'd say lives are lost when soldiers are sent abroad, where they (maybe) shouldn't be. Consider this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_dilemma
    - hackermatic 3y ago
      One of the things the Cold War taught us is that we almost destroyed the world with nuclear weapons several times because of accidents and misinterpretations, by both humans and computers. Having a human in the loop who was willing to say "no" or "wait"[0] may be why we are still here having this discussion today. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov
  - nradov 3y ago
    Then let's all go back to using swords and spears. Should make conflict even less likely, right? Autonomous and remotely controlled weapons systems have been in widespread use since at least the 1970s. There is zero chance that powerful countries would ever agree to ban them, or that such a ban could every be enforceable. It's a total fantasy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_60_CAPTOR?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_60_CAPTOR?wprov=sfla1
0xDEF 3y ago
>stopkillerrobots.org This kind of self-sabotaging suicidal stupidity should not exist after the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Russia, China, and Iran already have "killer robots". The only countries that will follow these suicidal regulations are stupid naive Western countries.
- stevenhuang 3y ago
  Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times.
meepmorp 3y ago
No, we should encourage the development of these kinds of weapons because they make combat less dangerous for US servicepeople. Also, it's incredibly naive to think that you'd achieve anything but handicapping western nation in their development of autonomous weapons. China certainly isn't going to forego the technology out of moral squeamishness.

nradov 3y ago

Bad idea. We should be encouraging development of autonomous weapons in order to reduce risks to US and allied military personnel in future conflicts.

jfim 3y ago
The problem with that approach is that it also makes conflicts more likely if there are no drawbacks to deployment of such weapons. There's a lot of push back to deploying human soldiers in a conflict, but much less so for remotely controlled drones. It's likely that AI bots would have even less domestic pressure to avoid conflicts.
- OkayPhysicist 3y ago
  So we should be endangering young American's lives in a twisted blood sacrifice to the maintenance of peace? Ridiculous. If the Cold War taught us anything, it's that peace is bought with the power to annihilate anyone who chooses to break it. And to extend the Cold War analogy, sovereignty is only real to the countries with the military prowess to uphold it. A peaceful world is one where war is too risky for the decision makers, not the soldiers.
  - jfim 3y ago
    > A peaceful world is one where war is too risky for the decision makers, not the soldiers. My point is that drones and autonomous weapons make it less risky for decision makers to engage in war, hence making it less peaceful.
  - Animatronio 3y ago
    Is anyone seriously threatening the US? I'd say lives are lost when soldiers are sent abroad, where they (maybe) shouldn't be. Consider this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_dilemma
  - hackermatic 3y ago
    One of the things the Cold War taught us is that we almost destroyed the world with nuclear weapons several times because of accidents and misinterpretations, by both humans and computers. Having a human in the loop who was willing to say "no" or "wait"[0] may be why we are still here having this discussion today. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov
- nradov 3y ago
  Then let's all go back to using swords and spears. Should make conflict even less likely, right? Autonomous and remotely controlled weapons systems have been in widespread use since at least the 1970s. There is zero chance that powerful countries would ever agree to ban them, or that such a ban could every be enforceable. It's a total fantasy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_60_CAPTOR?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_60_CAPTOR?wprov=sfla1

0xDEF 3y ago

>stopkillerrobots.org This kind of self-sabotaging suicidal stupidity should not exist after the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Russia, China, and Iran already have "killer robots". The only countries that will follow these suicidal regulations are stupid naive Western countries.

stevenhuang 3y ago
Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times.

meepmorp 3y ago

No, we should encourage the development of these kinds of weapons because they make combat less dangerous for US servicepeople. Also, it's incredibly naive to think that you'd achieve anything but handicapping western nation in their development of autonomous weapons. China certainly isn't going to forego the technology out of moral squeamishness.