However, a spokesman for the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots warned of the temptation to use them in warfare.
I had no idea such an organization existed. The future is now, I guess.
I had no idea such an organization existed. The future is now, I guess.
Lots of weapons already meet that requirement.
It's easy to use scare quotes here, because the automated behavior is so direct and understandable that we don't really see it as AI. Even when it does something other than what the human intended, it doesn't seem like a rebellious robot, just a heat-seeking missile that happened to be near an unexpected heat source, which it of course followed, and therefore hit the wrong thing. The general idea that the human is giving high-level orders and a robot is making local decisions in an attempt to carry them out is not that different though. The main difference is that the local decision logic is nowadays getting more complex than "find hot thing nearby". But that too is a gradual trend: even old heat-seeking missiles started getting more complex logic, to try to avoid being misled by flares.
The definition of "chemical weapons" is also problematic. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_use_in_Iraq
So from a friend that was a major in the USAF flying fixed and rotor wing aircraft: the current UCMJ / ROEs requires an officer present for each and every kill decision. Period. If that doesn't happen, it's get-a-lawyer-and-court-martial time. Probably main US military isn't the biggest threat if the video's fears in the near term, there are too many people watching: it's any force of any country that doesn't respect rules of war.
edit: For clarity.
You can make the argument that there are some very inhumane/barbaric ways to kill people, and as a "civilized" world, we shouldn't engage in them. But, that line of reasoning always takes you back to, "wait, how about we just not kill people at all?"