Hacker News Reader

Comment by guelo | Hacker News Reader

It is easy to prevent it, have the UN ban it and provide incentives for countries to sign a treaty. This has worked for things like chemical and biological warfare. The key is to star the process now before generals get their hands on the technology so there won't be any pushback.

View on HN

I'd argue that it's not that easy to "ban" something by getting the UN to say so, or even getting conventional treaties signed. First, the nations have to ratify it. And even if they do, they have to abide by it. Here are some random examples that I googled-for off the top of my head where these treaties, laws and the UN have failed.

Torture:

http://www.cfr.org/international-law/united-states-geneva-co...

Tear Gas:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/08/14...

Kyoto Protocol:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

Extrajudicial Killings in Drone Strikes:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/21/drone-strikes-i...

Yeah, you'd need a fully functional global judicial system that included a police force to make UN regulations stick.

hmm... maybe a fully functional autonomous weapons police force?

Is that you Skynet?

> Tear Gas:

Your linked article specifically stated tear gas was still legal for police use under the CWC. An expert rightly points out that this is illogical (and I agree), but it is not a failure.

Also, I should point out that the mace and pepper spray canisters that many people around the world carry for personal protection are also illegal chemical weapons under the CWC if used in combat.

There is a whole lot more illogic and inconsistency to be found between what is legal in something arbitrarily defined as "war" and otherwise, if one delves deep enough into the various treaties and conventions.

There's a question of whether one day you will be able to just "git pull 'terminator' " and install it on a cheap drone with an Arduino to pull the trigger on a mounted AK47.

I reckon the software will get more and more ubiquitous. You can already download image recognition software, maps, and all the other code you need. How far are we actually from being able to send a drone to do what contract killers used to do?

This is a good idea, in theory. I just wonder how controllable it would be, once AI is more of a ubiquitous technology. With nuclear and bio warfare you can ban certain substances. Development of safe nuclear energy has suffered from this, perhaps justifiably. But once there are APIs, Open Source libraries, etc. out there, how will we contain it?

Right, but for it to be successful, there's still a substantial amount of R&D to get the systems cooperating in a manner effective on the battlefield.

I agree, however, that if this were to go forward with a military bankroll, the result would be much easier to replicate. I'm particularly struck by this sentence from the letter: "If any major military power pushes ahead with AI weapon development...autonomous weapons will become the Kalashnikovs of tomorrow." That's terrifying.

This has worked for things like chemical and biological warfare

I think the Kurds and some Syrians would beg to differ.

And they face(d) legal retaliation. Just like any other law. Sure, people can break it. That opens the door to justified retaliation.

Should we legalize theft just because people still get pickpocketed?

No, that's not my argument. My argument is that you shouldn't leave your doors wide open simply because theft is illegal. It still happens, and so will actions with "illegal" weapons.

I'm not suggesting we should ignore it, I'm suggesting that aside from making us feel nice, it's not an effective "solution".

And what would be the analog of leaving your doors wide open in this scenario?

Dismantling a standing army?

Not doing any cyberwarfare R&D?

I don't think either of those are included in the proposal of "ban offensive AI weapons."

You may as well do the first two if you aren't going to do the latter. Fighting an opponent using AI is like fighting a modern army with spears because you think guns are evil.

This is such a technology leap it's not even funny. I appreciate the signatories' intent here and applaud them for higher level thinking but banning offensive AI first strike or counter strike ability is not going to happen because it puts people that ignore said ban far ahead of you in the ability to deal death department.

The US isn't going to dismantle it's nuclear arms, and neither is any other major power. Same story here, only these weapons are even scarier because of the fact that they are much more flexible.

It's nuclear arms strength without all that gooey radiation mess. AI could do everything from surgical strikes to full on massed combat without losing a countryman and dominating other nations on the battlefield. Nobody is going to get caught flat footed on that one.

No it's more like having guns that are mounted around your village, but not allowing guns that can be mobilized outwardly. For a world trying to be more civilized, that's a noble and defensible position.

> "The US isn't going to dismantle it's nuclear arms, and neither is any other major power."

It can be done. It happened in South Africa. It was also the subject of considerable debate in the last UK election. We don't have to keep them, as many people recognise they're very expensive for something we have no need for.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com