General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTrump and the Pentagon are fighting for AI weaponry.
Trump & Hegseth want AI machines that kill without hesitation, ethics, or moral compass.
The companies capable of developing such arms are queasy about being responsible for war crimes if it gets out of control and they want nothing to do with it. Even a number of top brass in the Pentagon have expressed misgivings about the lack of guardrails to ensure innocents aren't killed.
Hegseth doesn't give a crap about morals, liability, or guardrails. He just wants to point a finger at people and have them die at his command. Him & Trump figure AI will fit right in with their "Dept of War"
This is the excerpt from my local on the matter:
[img]
[/img]
[img]
[/img]
FalloutShelter
(14,674 posts)bucolic_frolic
(56,035 posts)The moral aspects of novel weaponry has surfaced over the centuries. Supposedly a great theological debate pre-Crusades was whether it was permissible for knights to kill people.
There were British Generals prior to WWII who opposed Churchill's development of SOE tactics. Limpet bombs, and others, were novel at the time and some say decisive in winning the war.
There is a YouTube video that says we turned the Battle of the Bulge when we used some novel weapon, it was some kind of cluster shell that exploded mid-air and dropped shrapnel straight downward. Some debated its morality at the time. I seem to recall Ike was none to keen.
So increased lethality is nothing new. That doesn't make it moral.
rampartd
(5,238 posts)the reason our billionaires have avoided going post apocalyptic is because they can not trust their human servants, specifically their security teams.
killer drones are on the way.
JohnnyRingo
(21,053 posts)The issue is when killer drones start thinking for themselves based on available data.
Pandora's Box.
rampartd
(5,238 posts)the day is coming when we must learn to duck these things.