Spyke
feddit.it

They don't need to ban AI, they need to enforce responsibility for "War Crimes."

Doesn't matter if you used AI to kill schoolgirls or not, the fact is: you were in command and you ordered a strike that killed schoolgirls. The transistor in the circuit board of the guidance computer is not liable, the human making the decision to go ahead with the strike is.

13
WhyJiffiereply
sh.itjust.works

false equivalence. that's like saying in defense of war crimes, sue the weapons and war vehicles, and see how they defend themselves in court.

0
MangoCatsreply
feddit.it

And how is that false equivalence to an algorithm running on a bunch of transistors?

2
WhyJiffiereply
sh.itjust.works

because the point of my example is that neither case works like that. you can't sue weapons, you sue those who commanded their use. you can't sue transistors.. and what does that mean? it means you sue those that commanded the use of AI assisted weapons.

common sense, really.

1
MangoCatsreply
feddit.it

Reread the thread and point out anywhere you get even the slightest impression that I disagree with what you just wrote...

1

I read this as implying whwt I say does not make sense:

Sue a transistor, see how it conducts itself.

1
lemmy.dbzer0.com

Eh

We can kinda guarantee that future wars will be fought with bots, ai and drones etc

Fewer humans will be killed in theory

Of course then the winner is just who can make the most drones

But i do prefer bots and drones dying, over humans. I mean chemical weapons are already illegal in war and russia still use it.. need to fight fire with hotter fire

-4
slrpnk.net

It will be robots sent to kill humans, whether by another country or the country on its own citizens.

Robots killing robots is just damage to capital which the elites will make sure is not the path forward.

24

I mean bombs are made to blow up so constantly having reasons to blow up means there's reasons to keep on making money off the bomb factories. So it props up the military industrial complex

1

This is a complete misread of what this means. Drones are used to kill people, not other drones. Drones are last priority targets in basically all cases except for strategic defensive positions. This switch means more death at the hands of less (or no) people. It's like arguing that nukes are good because they're so destructive that they'll end war. Which is the opposite of what they did, wars just became proxy wars in an attempt to drain your adversary of resources, instead of direct conflict to stop them. We have more international conflict now than at any point in human history. This will make that even worse.

8

You reached the end

Over 200 organizations call for a ban on "artificial intelligence" in military kill chains | Spyke