All my supposedly witty comments in your headline and sub-headline.
I suppose the only thing left is to take off and nuke it from orbit.
The use of fully automated AI systems in military battles is inevitable unless there are strict regulations in place from international treaties, eggheads have opined. Their paper, which popped up on arXiv [PDF] last week, discusses the grim outlook of developing killing machines for armed forces. The idea of keeping humans in …
Not always even then. The tech will get used where it's felt that the advantage of using it outweighs the advantage of banning it. And even then, breaking the ban is always an option. Tech doesn't get uninvented, just because it's banned.
And even when banned, there are always worse options. For example, in 1990 France announced during the war to kick Iraq out of Kuwait that they considered chemical weapons a weapon of mass destruction - and so as they didn't have any of their own to retaliate with they would be force to fall back on their nuclear umbrella.
Also it's much harder to ban what you can't verify. Strategic nuclear weapons are quite big and easy to spot. And if you can hide the specific weapon, you can't hide the infrastructure and manufacturing.
AI is just another kind of software. Is that server rack in your missile system running normal control software or some sort of AI? Now prove it. Erm?
Not that I believe any kind of useable AI is even remotely plausible in the next few years, so it's a moot point. And certainly nothing you'd trust to do more than offer assistance.
Spoken to the Norks about these treaties? Iran too (to a lesser extent)?
Both the American and Russians have developed chemical weapons under the guise of using them on civilians (all perfectly legal and above board) so there's always ways around these things.
Maybe we should also be looking to give these things emotions to aid in trying to avoid being overly hostile or is that just human hubris wanting something that understands consequences?
"Spoken to the Norks about these treaties? Iran too (to a lesser extent)?"
Never mind them - there's another country that fancies itself as defender of the world which has a history of not signing up to treaties intended to make war more 'humane', along with a reluctance to hold its military to account for the occasional events that most other countries consider to be war crimes.
“I think that if it can be shown that implementing AI in weapons systems, even in a comparatively simple 'human in the loop' case, creates inevitable pressures to full LAWS systems, that nations may be interested in avoiding an expensive arms race that would produce questionable value.
They only need to be cheaper/more effective for them to be adopted without thinking through the consequences
and more HyperRadioProACTive
That's when AI stops Moronic Teaching with Presentations Perfecting Answers to All Problematical Questions.
You might like to think of El Reg as a Tentacle or Prime Prize Node Lode of such an AI, and with Almighty ProgramMINGs to Boot with Stealthy AIdDrivers on/in Virtually Free Hosting Platforms.
The Object of Current Exercises, and AIRaison d'Être, the ExCommunion and Exorcism of Leading Cracked and Hacked Systems Plunging Deep Darkside into the ...... well, the Heavenly Abyss with Real Horny Angels is never going to be a Bad Rad Fad Fab, is it? It's a COSMIC Staple. And Immaculate Root Source of All Future EMPowerments.
Not really. It gives nothing away accept the name of the pub :)
And there surely has to be a time limit on spoilers. It's over 15 years old now that movie :)
Madness, where does the time go. And as I get older I still find it strange that a 15 year old movie still looks good today as if it was made yesterday. You can't say the same if you were watching a 15 year old movie from the 70s in 1990.
"The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots."
- The Secret War of Lisa Simpson, in which Willem Dafoe's Commandant delivers a graduation speech to his cadets at a military academy.
...some government asshole/idiot somewhere willing to use shit like this, regardless.
It's like a universal constant of human behaviour : "Somewhere there's always a big enough idiot in charge to do *anything*".
"Bad" people/organisations/governments do whatever crap they think they can get away with, right?
I haven't seen any discussion anywhere yet where taking humans out of the equation is not perceived as some sort of threat. Terminator's fault, probably. I'd rather see these questions addressed:
- Will a fully automated AI system have any incentive to try and kill as many civilians as it can find, seek out non combatant children, mothers, elderly people in whatever hiding place they might have found, to finish off the job etc. just because they somehow get off on the action?
- Would a computer system want to torture prisoners and make them pose for selfies to impress its mates and give their families at home a chuckle?
- Would an AI system then try to cover its tracks, because national honour etc.?
I can only guess at the answers to this, but at first glance it seems that the move to AI warfare might save quite a few lives.
AI removes the human element the same way a gun or atomic weapon does.
After it leaves the hands of the user, it then becomes a fire and forget killing machine. A bullet cannot change mid course. And we may fool ourselves into thinking AI/Automated killing machines will. Hopefully the first to find out their errors will be the last to attempt it, when the friend/foe system fails miserably.
Once an AI figures out that children become combatants with guns after some time has lapsed, they become legitimate targets. Women can fight too (and in a large all-out war, probably will) so can become combatants at any time and thus are legitimate targets. The elderly can follow pretty much the same reasoning.
An AI probably has no incentive to torture, unless this can allow it to extract information from meatbags it can use to destroy it's targets, in which case it'll probably be way more effective at doing so since it won't have ANY sense of sympathy or "justified levels of force" at all.
And an AI WILL probably cover it's tracks once it learns the stupid humans might try to stop it achieving it's goals if it uses unconventional means to fulfill it's mission.
The best way to avoid catastrophe is supporting regulation and prohibition of LAWS. “Like chemical and biological weapons, for weaponized AI, 'the only winning move is not to play.'"
More Rotten Pie in the Sky Thinking from that and those not into Absolute Command and Remote Virtual Control .... unless under their Absolute Command and Remote Virtual Control Control. The abiding and rapidly growing most evident problem for established hierarchical systems is .... they do not possess the smarts to in any effective way deal with the opportunities that now would be presenting themselves to those of another mind and with the means easily made readily available to take full overwhelming advantage of intelligence and information gathered and released for and/or from unaccountable and almighty leading positions.
It is just as bad and misguided as imagining Parliamentarians being made
fully more fully aware of Secure Secret Services Services as be highlighted in another story today.
amanfromMars  ..... airing a contrary view on https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mi5-data-breach-safeguards-investigatory-powers-act-javid-a8913506.html
Well now, .... that's encouraging. MI5 flexing and beta testing their not inconsiderable muscle and brain power pool in the New State of Performing Media Arts and Great IntelAIgent Games Play and to wonderfully disturbing chilling effect by all accounts ....... or by the account of those of the politically inept and effete ......... and apparently with nobody outside of MI5 Core Offices exactly aware of such Secure ACTive Defence Operations, nor able to identify which particular and peculiar specialities are responsible.
That's about as good as it gets nowadays for those into the provision and maintenance of Secret Stealth Projects and Programs.
Seems like the MOD have their very own Operating Skunkworks. And just in time for all the Fun of the Fare too.
Bravo, .... Encore, please . It is exactly just what corrupt and collapsing systems need.
Cometh the hour, cometh the man and Spooky Salvation .....with CyberIntelAIgent Security Systems Solutions ‽ .
What parts of Secure Secret Services Services do Parliamentarian types not understand and plot to undermine and seek to destroy with damaging revelations. Good luck with that Sedition.
>>>until food is free for all and plentiful<<< That's the main reason I think growing crops for ethanol production instead of food is a very bad idea.
As for leaders - Douglas Adams puts it best..
"It is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019