>There is no need to solve the long-term AI problem of general intelligence in order to build high-value applications that exploit limited-scope autonomous capabilities dedicated to specific purposes.
I'd argue that statement is inclusive of robotic infantry. We already have self-driving cars, so the prospect is not that far-fetched.
I doubt we are that close. Recognizing road signs and making judgement calls on the above are not the same order of magnitude of complexity.
Remotely controlled infantry, that would be more realistic.
On the contrary, self-driving vehicles go far beyond merely "recognizing road signs", and must make life and death judgement calls themselves.
Recognizing a person holding a weapon is already in the realm of current machine vision capability. In an environment where robotic infantry is deployed, it's not a stretch to imagine friendly forces possessing equipment to facilitate friend/foe identification.
Moreover, robotic infantry doesn't necessarily have to be lethal in the first place.
(please no one do this.)
It's already being done, minus the IFF beacon. Just being in the general vicinity of some other person is enough to get murdered, no need for 'friendlies' (what a term) to go there at all.
These are some interesting questions, I have to admit.
Or to change your question - is it ethical to use civilians to maneuver around the killer robots who do not shoot at non-combatants? No, it's not, but it doesn't matter - because if your robots have such limitation, your opponent will surely exploit it to defeat you.
This is begging the question. The fact that some conflicts are waged with ROE shows that they're still self-imposed rule in at least some wars.
Hasn't that question been answered already, over and over again? You don't, not really. Also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11685995