I wonder what AI is defined as for this. Because no way is the US giving up it's advanced targeting and senior fusion capabilities, which some would call AI from the broad definition.
Probably about not letting AI decide when to pull the trigger but do everything else, and then have a human press the button to do the actual firing.
But can the person 'pulling the trigger' be back in the command bunker saying kill the enemy looking aircraft you find in this area? Because you're not always going to have a reliable communications link the whole way. And that's pretty much what beyond visual rage missiles do already.
Well I think they could say that and the unit would then respond with x possible targets and the human operator would need to give the ultimate go-ahead. Point being that it would be bad if you have a bot with a machine gun and you tell it to kill everyone hostile with a gun in this area and it blasts that 13 yo kid with a fucking stick. They could identify targets, but a human would have to be the one okaying them.
If you lose communications then you're shit out of luck. Though I guess you would have some backup system like if comms fail go back to base or hunker down etc and wait.
Probably yes.
Neither the US or China is going to honor this. We all know that. I’d rather be comfortable with some body that mandates war-time guidelines ala Geneva conventions than outright bans, which don’t really work
Problem is doing that violates the principal of national sovereignty, which is basically the underpinning of how the entire international system works post WWII
Yhe but if they do humanity loses soooo
Edit:humany loses if they don't honor, that's all I'm saying
How about pledging not to start any more wars?
I mean, why would that stop anyone? Better to try and remove the reasons for war.
So people?
I was thinking more bargaining barriers, imperfect information, and perverse incentives. But getting rid of people would also technically work I suppose.
Edit: Oops, I guess barriers to being a bartender cause wars now
Lol, your reply is better.
He would money be made if we didn’t profit on wars and politics?
And Russia sees their chance to finally grab the advantage.
There is zero chance AI won't end up in weapons, no matter what treaties are signed, because there is no putting the cap back on this bottle.
WE ARE DOOOOMED. ;)
There is no chance AI isn't already in weapons.
Counter:
Both should build the ultimate AI warriors and henceforth settle all conflicts with a battle royal.
nuclear warhead control
Have they not seen, like, any Hollywood movie about an AI in control of nuclear weapons?
Well, we know what weapon platform the CCP is implementing now. Heavy into AI.
I would assume that this agreement would only be regarding fully autonomous AI. That is, AI that are able to act independently and make the decision to strike without human intervention. I don't see the US agreeing to give up the drones that are supposed to be flying wingman to future fighters.
Or, given the source, this article could just be intended to pressure the US to agree to restrictions, and to set the stage for being outraged if they don't.
Yes yes we will certainly not develop AI controlled warheads 🤞
How open is Pandora's box? That is the real question. This may be seen as a bigger move in the future.
I could imagine Biden and Dems upholding their end, Drones are an inaccurate enough problem tactic when you've got a trained airman on the cam doing confirmation flyovers. I could see SOME republicans doing the same for the same reason.
Trump would straight up be measuring mission success by how much collateral that could have happened did happen. Like the man would ban the use of the flying ginsu for not being terrifying enough because it only shreds the area of a medium sized car with all those spring out blades.
Xi, I think Xi will gesture towards the internationally perceived "right answer" while pretty openly making sure all options remain available to his command. Xi is definitely that guy who measures his chess performance by how many options he's kept open even into the closing phases of the game.
I see a headline like this and think, “oh fuck they’re definitely developing that, if they haven’t already.”
"We promise to think about it reaaaallly hard before we do it and then we'll feel bad afterwards"
i thought exactly the same thing.! Welp i know what they are working on next/currently/already deployed
You didn't think Skynet could exist?
My dude, not only could it exist, it's already been here. For years.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKYNET_(surveillance_program)
I wonder what AI is defined as for this. Because no way is the US giving up it's advanced targeting and senior fusion capabilities, which some would call AI from the broad definition.
Probably about not letting AI decide when to pull the trigger but do everything else, and then have a human press the button to do the actual firing.
But can the person 'pulling the trigger' be back in the command bunker saying kill the enemy looking aircraft you find in this area? Because you're not always going to have a reliable communications link the whole way. And that's pretty much what beyond visual rage missiles do already.
Well I think they could say that and the unit would then respond with x possible targets and the human operator would need to give the ultimate go-ahead. Point being that it would be bad if you have a bot with a machine gun and you tell it to kill everyone hostile with a gun in this area and it blasts that 13 yo kid with a fucking stick. They could identify targets, but a human would have to be the one okaying them.
If you lose communications then you're shit out of luck. Though I guess you would have some backup system like if comms fail go back to base or hunker down etc and wait.
Probably yes.
Neither the US or China is going to honor this. We all know that. I’d rather be comfortable with some body that mandates war-time guidelines ala Geneva conventions than outright bans, which don’t really work
Problem is doing that violates the principal of national sovereignty, which is basically the underpinning of how the entire international system works post WWII
Yhe but if they do humanity loses soooo
Edit:humany loses if they don't honor, that's all I'm saying
How about pledging not to start any more wars?
I mean, why would that stop anyone? Better to try and remove the reasons for war.
So people?
I was thinking more bargaining barriers, imperfect information, and perverse incentives. But getting rid of people would also technically work I suppose.
Edit: Oops, I guess barriers to being a bartender cause wars now
Lol, your reply is better.
He would money be made if we didn’t profit on wars and politics?
And Russia sees their chance to finally grab the advantage.
There is zero chance AI won't end up in weapons, no matter what treaties are signed, because there is no putting the cap back on this bottle.
WE ARE DOOOOMED. ;)
There is no chance AI isn't already in weapons.
Counter:
Both should build the ultimate AI warriors and henceforth settle all conflicts with a battle royal.
Have they not seen, like, any Hollywood movie about an AI in control of nuclear weapons?
Would you like to play a game?
Well, we know what weapon platform the CCP is implementing now. Heavy into AI.
I would assume that this agreement would only be regarding fully autonomous AI. That is, AI that are able to act independently and make the decision to strike without human intervention. I don't see the US agreeing to give up the drones that are supposed to be flying wingman to future fighters.
Or, given the source, this article could just be intended to pressure the US to agree to restrictions, and to set the stage for being outraged if they don't.
Yes yes we will certainly not develop AI controlled warheads 🤞
How open is Pandora's box? That is the real question. This may be seen as a bigger move in the future.
I could imagine Biden and Dems upholding their end, Drones are an inaccurate enough problem tactic when you've got a trained airman on the cam doing confirmation flyovers. I could see SOME republicans doing the same for the same reason.
Trump would straight up be measuring mission success by how much collateral that could have happened did happen. Like the man would ban the use of the flying ginsu for not being terrifying enough because it only shreds the area of a medium sized car with all those spring out blades.
Xi, I think Xi will gesture towards the internationally perceived "right answer" while pretty openly making sure all options remain available to his command. Xi is definitely that guy who measures his chess performance by how many options he's kept open even into the closing phases of the game.