Int'l Ban on Autonomous Weapons

[Gary Childress]

Ban Killer Robots before They Become Weapons of Mass Destruction
We need an international agreement to prevent the development of autonomous weapons before they threaten global security
By Peter Asaro | August 7, 2015

Last week the Future of Life Institute released a letter signed by some 1,500 artificial intelligence (AI), robotics and technology researchers. Among them were celebrities of science and the technology industry—Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk and Steve Wozniak—along with public intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky and Daniel Dennett. The letter called for an international ban on offensive autonomous weapons, which could target and fire weapons without meaningful human control.

This week is the 70th anniversary of the atomic bombing of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, together killing over 200,000 people, mostly civilians. It took 10 years before the physicist Albert Einstein and philosopher Bertrand Russell, along with nine other prominent scientists and intellectuals, issued a letter calling for global action to address the threat to humanity posed by nuclear weapons. They were motivated by the atomic devastation in Japan but also by the escalating arms race of the Cold War that was rapidly and vastly increasing the number, destructive capability, and efficient delivery of nuclear arms, draining vast resources and putting humanity at risk of total destruction. They also note in their letter that those who knew the most about the effects of such weapons were the most concerned and pessimistic about their continued development and use.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... P_20150810

[kriswest]

This requires the argument: Ban guns and only the criminals will have them. The argument is painfully true. An international ban would allow countries to develop hideous weapons to be used to control the world. Humans are sneaky , egotistical and passionate. Shit would really hit the fan.

[Impenitent]

Howdy kriswest

Malicious Intellect?

-Imp

[Gary Childress]

This requires the argument: Ban guns and only the criminals will have them. The argument is painfully true. An international ban would allow countries to develop hideous weapons to be used to control the world. Humans are sneaky , egotistical and passionate]. Shit would really hit the fan.

Autonomous weapons are a threat to human safety and well being, ergo we should build them?

And banning them is allowing them?

[Dalek Prime]

Screamers, by Philip K. Dick.

[kriswest]

"Impenitent

Howdy kriswest

Malicious Intellect?

-Imp"

Hi! Yes and no, it is pretty quiet and it does fit or feels like a fit

[kriswest]

To Gary,
Please reread my post, if only criminals have superior weapons then they are in control.
Countries need defensive abilities equal or superior to potential criminal enemies.

[HexHammer]

Now now!

I don't see this dooms day scenario, well maybe in 100 years where they have elaborate conciousness.

Else they will theoretically be more humane to deplay than humans, who are often nervous, and trigger happy, a robot can stay calm in all situations and correctly assert a situation.

Robots won't rape, won't murder by intend (only by colatteral damage), won't want revenge ..etc, they won't have the bad human traits, that taints the battle field.

[kriswest]

Robots are programmed by humans,,, any bets on demented humans in charge of programming?

[Hobbes' Choice]

This requires the argument: Ban guns and only the criminals will have them. The argument is painfully true.

I'm surprised you have so easily fallen for that argument.
In the US criminals are allowed to have guns and the police are powerless to stop them having guns because to do so would be unconstitutional.
Gun ownership is a right but must carry responsibility. When you own a car you have to register it, and have a licence to drive it.
Gun reformers are not asking for a ban, but registration and licensing. This would give the courts to take away the rights of criminals who use guns illegally to own, use, and trade in fire-arms.

What is painfully true is the stupid straw man argument of the gun lobby that want to continue profiting from the arms trade.

An international ban would allow countries to develop hideous weapons to be used to control the world. Humans are sneaky , egotistical and passionate. Shit would really hit the fan.

This last part is so asinine I see no reason to bother with it. It is just so moronic.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Ban Killer Robots before They Become Weapons of Mass Destruction
We need an international agreement to prevent the development of autonomous weapons before they threaten global security
By Peter Asaro | August 7, 2015

Last week the Future of Life Institute released a letter signed by some 1,500 artificial intelligence (AI), robotics and technology researchers. Among them were celebrities of science and the technology industry—Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk and Steve Wozniak—along with public intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky and Daniel Dennett. The letter called for an international ban on offensive autonomous weapons, which could target and fire weapons without meaningful human control.

This week is the 70th anniversary of the atomic bombing of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, together killing over 200,000 people, mostly civilians. It took 10 years before the physicist Albert Einstein and philosopher Bertrand Russell, along with nine other prominent scientists and intellectuals, issued a letter calling for global action to address the threat to humanity posed by nuclear weapons. They were motivated by the atomic devastation in Japan but also by the escalating arms race of the Cold War that was rapidly and vastly increasing the number, destructive capability, and efficient delivery of nuclear arms, draining vast resources and putting humanity at risk of total destruction. They also note in their letter that those who knew the most about the effects of such weapons were the most concerned and pessimistic about their continued development and use.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... P_20150810

I'd go further and ban remote weapons that kill from such a distance that the operator considers them little more than a computer game. There is precious little difference between the two things.

I'm not sure how realistic the proposal for robot warriors is. They would require fail-safes to prevent them turning on their owners, and such things can be hacked.
If you go back to the times of ancient Rome, they used to use 'incendiary pigs'. They would send pigs on fire into the enemy lines shrieking and screaming in pain. Once they were released they could be a danger to their own troops.

[Skip]

Nobody can ban anything effectively. The weapons are out there. People have them, and most of the people who have, acquire or want weapons are to some degree deranged.
If we stopped producing ammunition, that might stop the weapons being used to kill other people... eventually, when the stockpiles run out. Meanwhile, the sane people are a powerless minority.

[Obvious Leo]

Nobody can ban anything effectively.

You stole my thunder because this is what I was going to say. How could such a ban work?

[kriswest]

This requires the argument: Ban guns and only the criminals will have them. The argument is painfully true.

I'm surprised you have so easily fallen for that argument.
In the US criminals are allowed to have guns and the police are powerless to stop them having guns because to do so would be unconstitutional.
Gun ownership is a right but must carry responsibility. When you own a car you have to register it, and have a licence to drive it.
Gun reformers are not asking for a ban, but registration and licensing. This would give the courts to take away the rights of criminals who use guns illegally to own, use, and trade in fire-arms.

What is painfully true is the stupid straw man argument of the gun lobby that want to continue profiting from the arms trade.

An international ban would allow countries to develop hideous weapons to be used to control the world. Humans are sneaky , egotistical and passionate. Shit would really hit the fan.

This last part is so asinine I see no reason to bother with it. It is just so moronic.

Not sure where you live but, in the USA ex convicts are not allowed to carry or vote or whatever other stipulations get put on their records. In order to regain rights they must follow procedures which the overwhelming majority do not. What a coincidence! I find your reply asinine and moronic as well.

[Hobbes' Choice]

This requires the argument: Ban guns and only the criminals will have them. The argument is painfully true.

I'm surprised you have so easily fallen for that argument.
In the US criminals are allowed to have guns and the police are powerless to stop them having guns because to do so would be unconstitutional.
Gun ownership is a right but must carry responsibility. When you own a car you have to register it, and have a licence to drive it.
Gun reformers are not asking for a ban, but registration and licensing. This would give the courts to take away the rights of criminals who use guns illegally to own, use, and trade in fire-arms.

What is painfully true is the stupid straw man argument of the gun lobby that want to continue profiting from the arms trade.

An international ban would allow countries to develop hideous weapons to be used to control the world. Humans are sneaky , egotistical and passionate. Shit would really hit the fan.

This last part is so asinine I see no reason to bother with it. It is just so moronic.

Not sure where you live but, in the USA ex convicts are not allowed to carry or vote or whatever other stipulations get put on their records. In order to regain rights they must follow procedures which the overwhelming majority do not. What a coincidence! I find your reply asinine and moronic as well.

Pretty much meaningless without a registration system.
When you drive a car, it is your responsibility to have documentation to show you have the right to do so.
Without registration the police have to prove a gun carrying person has been disallowed. In a country where you have no requirement to carry ID, this makes a ban on holding a fire-arm useless to law enforcement.

As for the last part, it remains moronic. I note you did not try to defend it.