Philosophy Now Forum

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.

kriswest wrote: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.

kriswest wrote: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.

Gary Childress wrote:

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

Skip wrote:Nobody can ban anything effectively.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

kriswest wrote: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.

kriswest wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

kriswest wrote: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.