Nov 15, 2015 03:26 AM
http://www.alphr.com/science/1001964/why...ler-robots
EXCERPT: When geniuses such as Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking call for a ban on something, it's hard to disagree. When they're demanding a ban on killer robots, it's even harder to question their judgement. Yet, here I am [...] To be clear, I don't disagree with the gist of their warning. The collection of academics and business leaders argued in an open letter that autonomous weapons, those that “select and engage targets without human intervention”, are feasible within years, not decades.
[...] "Unlike nuclear weapons, they require no costly or hard-to-obtain raw materials, so they will become ubiquitous and cheap for all significant military powers to mass-produce.” Terrifying indeed, and while it’s hard to argue against a ban, it’s ultimately futile: governments will break it, just like restrictions on every other harmful facet of technology. [...] Take snooping, for example. [...] Those who published stories on snooping programmes such as Echelon were dismissed as cranks. Now the Snowden revelations prove their “paranoia” was nothing of the sort.
In the end, the letter does little more than assuage researchers' own guilt that the technology they're building will be used for immoral means [...] So, to the signatories of that letter [...] do more than write letters. Come up with systems to guard against killer robots, to prevent automated drones from targeting living beings, or for us to protect ourselves from such terrors....
EXCERPT: When geniuses such as Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking call for a ban on something, it's hard to disagree. When they're demanding a ban on killer robots, it's even harder to question their judgement. Yet, here I am [...] To be clear, I don't disagree with the gist of their warning. The collection of academics and business leaders argued in an open letter that autonomous weapons, those that “select and engage targets without human intervention”, are feasible within years, not decades.
[...] "Unlike nuclear weapons, they require no costly or hard-to-obtain raw materials, so they will become ubiquitous and cheap for all significant military powers to mass-produce.” Terrifying indeed, and while it’s hard to argue against a ban, it’s ultimately futile: governments will break it, just like restrictions on every other harmful facet of technology. [...] Take snooping, for example. [...] Those who published stories on snooping programmes such as Echelon were dismissed as cranks. Now the Snowden revelations prove their “paranoia” was nothing of the sort.
In the end, the letter does little more than assuage researchers' own guilt that the technology they're building will be used for immoral means [...] So, to the signatories of that letter [...] do more than write letters. Come up with systems to guard against killer robots, to prevent automated drones from targeting living beings, or for us to protect ourselves from such terrors....