RE: AI... Ban FAW (fully autonomous weapons) and LAW (lethal autonomous weapons) before it's too late!
I read your post on the use of technology to improve our ability (already excellent) to kill each other and then I find a post by @jjqf at https://steemit.com/ia/@jjqf/ai -that-could-cause-people-with-paralysis-to-rewrite-by-hand and I tell myself that all is not lost.
The idea that we can create soldiers or intelligent weapons that would not require human intervention to kill is terrifying, but if that same technology is applied in something more productive than "control and elimination of threatening, real or fictitious," then the thing would be better.
Something strange that I want to comment to close, it is generally thought that a "soldier AI" would be cold and ruthless and would lack the "compassion of a human", but at least with the machines the rules would be clear ... there are many stories of "Human Soldiers" who were very inhuman, cruel, ruthless and sadistic to an extreme degree, breaking the rules in some cases to satisfy a dark personal pleasure of submitting to other people and reaching cases of killing "for fun."
Hello @pedrobrito2004,
thank you for your comment and point out @jjqf's article to me!
What really brought my thoughts a little down to earth was "Richard Moyes" presentation about what he, as a advocate for banning FAW/LAW with experience in fighting for a ban of other cruel weapons systems (cluster bombs), concentrates on in his work.
In a timeline he uses to explain what his work is about he highlighted the present capabilities of AI supported/driven systems, for example smart weapons systems that are directed against a group of armored verhicles and that "decide" on their own what targets they engage on (shape charges used). So they weapons are deployed to an limited area (100 ft or so) and they select the target to destroy in this vicinity by themselves. The last human intervention on such an attac is the firing of the weapon into the general area with the targets to engage on.
No compassion, no feeling at all but a clear set of rules, heat signatures for example, defines how the weapon acts.
In that regard an equivalent weapons system could be a land mine for example. Clear set of rules (stop on it and it blows up, more complex rules include setting off a while group of land mines if one is triggered) but otherwise fulfilling the criteria of an FAW.
So everything that goes beyond these clear set of rules methods, that would involve "feelings" or even possibly "consciousness" he sees as a possibility with an lower probability in an not so near future.
In regard to your closing statement in your comment I could not agree more!
Cheers!
Lucky