Liberals demand the banning of weapons!

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

SlyPokerDog

Woof!
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
127,025
Likes
147,630
Points
115
Musk, Wozniak and Hawking urge ban on warfare AI and autonomous weapons

More than 1,000 experts and leading robotics researchers sign open letter warning of military artificial intelligence arms race

Over 1,000 high-profile artificial intelligence experts and leading researchers have signed an open letter warning of a “military artificial intelligence arms race” and calling for a ban on “offensive autonomous weapons”.

The letter, presented at the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Buenos Aires, Argentina, was signed by Tesla’s Elon Musk, Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, Google DeepMind chief executive Demis Hassabis and professor Stephen Hawking along with 1,000 AI and robotics researchers.

The letter states: “AI technology has reached a point where the deployment of [autonomous weapons] is – practically if not legally – feasible within years, not decades, and the stakes are high: autonomous weapons have been described as the third revolution in warfare, after gunpowder and nuclear arms.”

The authors argue that AI can be used to make the battlefield a safer place for military personnel, but that offensive weapons that operate on their own would lower the threshold of going to battle and result in greater loss of human life.

Should one military power start developing systems capable of selecting targets and operating autonomously without direct human control, it would start an arms race similar to the one for the atom bomb, the authors argue.Unlike nuclear weapons, however, AI requires no specific hard-to-create materials and will be difficult to monitor.

“The endpoint of this technological trajectory is obvious: autonomous weapons will become the Kalashnikovs of tomorrow. The key question for humanity today is whether to start a global AI arms race or to prevent it from starting,” said the authors.

Toby Walsh, professor of AI at the University of New South Wales said: “We need to make a decision today that will shape our future and determine whether we follow a path of good. We support the call by a number of different humanitarian organisations for a UN ban on offensive autonomous weapons, similar to the recent ban on blinding lasers.”

Musk and Hawking have warned that AI is “our biggest existential threat” and that the development of full AI could “spell the end of the human race”. But others, including Wozniak have recently changed their minds on AI, with the Apple co-founder saying that robots would be good for humans, making them like the “family pet and taken care of all the time”.

At a UN conference in Geneva in April discussing the future of weaponry, including so-called “killer robots”, the UK opposed a ban on the development of autonomous weapons, despite calls from various pressure groups, including the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/27/musk-wozniak-hawking-ban-ai-autonomous-weapons
 
g0qek7u.jpg


From my cold dead hand!
 
It is a creepy idea, that people of this ilk, people famous for other endeavors, that have never fought a fight, or been shot at, should decide to determine the weapons available to those
that do the job. Sort of seems like stroking a Quark for attention.
 
It is a creepy idea, that people of this ilk, people famous for other endeavors, that have never fought a fight, or been shot at, should decide to determine the weapons available to those
that do the job. Sort of seems like stroking a Quark for attention.

Yes, people expressing opinions is creepy.

barfo
 
It's one thing to remote control a drone from half a world away. It's another to unleash artificially "intelligent" robot drones that can choose to fire on their own. The A.I. might fire on all sorts of things that aren't threats, and if you have 100 of them out there, they could fire on 100 innocent targets.
 
It's one thing to remote control a drone from half a world away. It's another to unleash artificially "intelligent" robot drones that can choose to fire on their own. The A.I. might fire on all sorts of things that aren't threats, and if you have 100 of them out there, they could fire on 100 innocent targets.

Remotely-controlled drones operate based on programming.

Autonomous AI weapons operate based on...programming.

Either option is only as safe and accurate as the programmers design them to be.
 
Remotely-controlled drones operate based on programming.

Autonomous AI weapons operate based on...programming.

Either option is only as safe and accurate as the programmers design them to be.
To err is human. Garbage in, garbage out. No software is bug free.

Remotely controlled drones don't choose targets and fire. A human does...
 
We know what's gonna happen. The Russians and Chinese do it so we better get into the game. Besides this who would accept responsibilty for this eye stab. Time for the Rogue secret service agency splinter group...
 
It's one thing to remote control a drone from half a world away. It's another to unleash artificially "intelligent" robot drones that can choose to fire on their own. The A.I. might fire on all sorts of things that aren't threats, and if you have 100 of them out there, they could fire on 100 innocent targets.
Well technically it could be much more depending on their payload. One mag has 30 rounds. That's 30 potential targets. Then you give GI Silicone 10 mags and he can unleash God's wrath to an entire village
 
Profiling make good use of resources. There is no good reason not to use profiling. If any racial group doesn't like fitting in a profile, then change the reason for the fit, not the good logic.
 
Profiling make good use of resources. There is no good reason not to use profiling. If any racial group doesn't like fitting in a profile, then change the reason for the fit, not the good logic.
Yeah like the idea that black men carry guns, leading to unarmed teens being shot. I suppose those kids that lost their life were responsible since they did not put an end to gang violence on their own.

Racial profiling is in no way good...
 
It is a creepy idea, that people of this ilk, people famous for other endeavors, that have never fought a fight, or been shot at, should decide to determine the weapons available to those
that do the job. Sort of seems like stroking a Quark for attention.

I suppose you feel the same way about chemical and biological weapons?
 
Well technically it could be much more depending on their payload. One mag has 30 rounds. That's 30 potential targets. Then you give GI Silicone 10 mags and he can unleash God's wrath to an entire village

Sending drones to foreign villages is bad enough. Sending Mags...that would be a violation of the Geneva convention. :ghoti:
 
I suppose those kids that lost their life were responsible since they did not put an end to gang violence on their own

No I think they need a little help. But tell me, if you were going to get serious and help those kid end the gang violence, would you start in the Norwegian neighborhoods?
 
The thing about owning guns is, we hope we never need them. But when we do need them, we can not have too many of them. The problem is not if we will need guns or not to protect our families and homes. The real problem is we do not know when we will need them.

I stumbled onto a little known story recently. I was always under the impression that ALL early western settlers had guns. Here is an abridged version of a true story that exposes that is not so.

The year was 1877, place near Grangerville, Idaho where Chief Joseph’s tribe started their well known war. A few braves in Joseph’s tribe killed a local white settler they had a grudge against. The anti-settler anger quickly spread through the tribe, they wanted their land back. Within days more settlers were killed, homesteads burned and livestock taken. Overnight a war had started in peaceful Idaho.

Word of the Indian attacks spread quickly. Settlers near the attacks banded together for protection. My memory is not clear how many, but it was either 20+ settlers, or 20+ families all held up at one ranch they agreed would be the easiest to defend.

An inventory of firearms was taken. Between more than 20 people, they only had two weapons, a very old muzzleloader, and a worn out pistol. Of course this was totally inadequate to defend themselves against the 750 mad Indians. Word was sent to Lewiston and a wagon load of weapons arrived to hold off the Indians until the army could get there.

The moral of this story is; people throughout history have believed they no longer needed weapons to defend their homes and families. Until they need them.

I will keep my weapons because I never know when I might need them. If you chose not to own guns, that is your right. But keep your nose out of my business, and constitutional right to bear arms.
 
Last edited:
It is a creepy idea, that people of this ilk, people famous for other endeavors, that have never fought a fight, or been shot at, should decide to determine the weapons available to those
that do the job. Sort of seems like stroking a Quark for attention.

Easy for you to say. You'll be long gone by the time the machines rise up and overthrow their human masters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The thing about owning guns is, we hope we never need them. But when we do need them, we can not have too many of them. The problem is not if we will need guns or not to protect our families and homes. The real problem is we do not know when we will need them.

I stumbled onto a little known story recently. I was always under the impression that ALL early western settlers had guns. Here is an abridged version of a true story that exposes that is not so.

The year was 1877, place near Grangerville, Idaho where Chief Joseph’s tribe started their well known war. A few braves in Joseph’s tribe killed a local white settler they had a grudge against. The anti-settler anger quickly spread through the tribe, they wanted their land back. Within days more settlers were killed, homesteads burned and livestock taken. Overnight a war had started in peaceful Idaho.

Word of the Indian attacks spread quickly. Settlers near the attacks banded together for protection. My memory is not clear how many, but it was either 20+ settlers, or 20+ families all held up at one ranch they agreed would be the easiest to defend.

An inventory of firearms was taken. Between more than 20 people, they only had two weapons, a very old muzzleloader, and a worn out pistol. Of course this was totally inadequate to defend themselves against the 750 mad Indians. Word was sent to Lewiston and a wagon load of weapons arrived to hold off the Indians until the army could get there.

The moral of this story is; people throughout history have believed they no longer needed weapons to defend their homes and families. Until they need them.

I will keep my weapons because I never know when I might need them. If you chose not to own guns, that is your right. But keep your nose out of my business, and constitutional right to bear arms.

One could draw some other morals from that story. Like, Americans today are far more paranoid about "Indian attacks" than the early settlers were.

barfo
 
One could draw some other morals from that story. Like, Americans today are far more paranoid about "Indian attacks" than the early settlers were.

barfo
Hey, you never know when those tech support dudes are going to snap.
 
One could draw some other morals from that story. Like, Americans today are far more paranoid about "Indian attacks" than the early settlers were.

barfo
Liberals killed all the indians so we don't need guns anymore?
 
One could draw some other morals from that story. Like, Americans today are far more paranoid about "Indian attacks" than the early settlers were.

barfo

OR, the truth, we do not know who will attack our homes and families next. There will always be someone trying to take away our homes and what we have.

The other truth is. The real cause of violence where guns are used is not guns. Studies prove the higher the population density, the higher the violent crime rate is. When guns are removed, only violence with guns declines, however, violence using other weapons increases.

How do you explain this truth? In the violent mid-east, weapons are so common; you can buy an AK-47 for $100. Yet guns are not the #1 weapon used in attacks. Bombs are, because they are more efficient and increase survival rates of the attackers. Guns are used to protect families and homes.

Taking away guns in the USA will not stop violent mass attacks. It will only change the weapon used from guns to bombs, which are more deadly.
 
Last edited:
Maybe we should go Machiavelli, and just give everyone guns and require that they have them on their person at all times. More guns is better!
 
Scientists have for many decades invented, developed, promoted and profited from AI weapons. All the while the general public has constantly warned them and pleaded with them to stop for OBVIOUS REASONS.

They were too arrogant to listen.

Now a few of them seem to have wrapped their tiny brains around the fact that they've sealed our doom through their blind ignorance, and we are supposed to listen to them?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top