There is a wide range of moral and practical opinions between the statement “all weapons are evil” and “global corporations ought not to develop autonomous weapons”.
Ideally no one, and if the cost / expertise is so niche that only a handful of sophisticated actors could possibly actually do it, then in fact (by way of enforceable treaty) no one.
> enforceable treaty
How would you enforce it after you get nuked?
We're talking about making war slightly more expensive for yourself to preserve the things that matter, which is a trade-off that we make all the time. Even in war you don't have to race for the bottom for every marginal fraction-of-a-percent edge. We've managed to e.g. ban antipersonnel landmines, this is an extremely similar case.
> How would you enforce it after you get nuked?
And yet we've somehow managed to avoid getting into nuclear wars.
AI on the other hand seems to be very multi purpose
Feels good but will lead to disaster in the long run.
Yes, through a massive programme of nuclear armament. In the case of AI, we should therefore...?
Anyone who wants to establish deterrence against superiors or peers, and open up options for handling weaker opponents.
> enforceable treaty
Such a thing does not exist. International affairs are and will always be in a state of anarchy. If at some point they aren't, then there is no "international" anymore.
Might be thinking of Anduril.
Look it up.
There is at this moment little evidence that autonomous weapons will cause more collateral damage than artillery shells and regular air strikes. The military usefulness on other other hand seems to be very high and increasing.
Like skydiving without a parachute, I think we should accept it is a bad idea without needing a double blind study
we have, of course, developed all three. they have gone a long way towards keeping us safe over the past century.
Propping up evil figure/regime/ideology (Bolsheviks/Communists) to justify remorseless evilness (Concentration camps/Nuclear bomb) isn't new nor unique, but particularly predictable.
I'm sure this sounds like a big nothingburger from the perspective of, you know, people he isn't threatening.
How can you excuse that behaviour? How can you think someone like that can be trusted with any weapons? How naive and morally bankrupt do you have to be to build a gun for that kind of person, and think that it won't be used irresponsibly?
That it won't is a mixture of cowardice, cynical opportunism, and complicity with unprovoked aggression.
In which case, I posit that yes, if you're fine with threatening or inflicting violence on innocent people, you don't have a moral right to 'self-defense'. It makes you a predator, and arming a predator is a mistake.
You lose any moral ground you have when you are an unprovoked aggressor.
There are more options than arming an aggressor and capitulating to foreign powers. It's a false dichotomy to suggest it.
He literally threatened a peaceful nation (also an ally) of invasion and annexation. How worse can it get?