Musk, Hawking, Wozniak: Ban AI warfare, autonomous weapons

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Extreme Tech

Musk, Hawking, Wozniak: Ban AI warfare, autonomous weapons
By Bill Howard on July 27, 2015 at 4:40 pm

More than a thousand researchers, AI experts, and high-profile business leaders say war is getting out of hand and we should ban “offensive autonomous weapons,” lest the world powers wind up in a “military artificial intelligence arms race.” They would ban AI development for warfare and autonomous weapons that decide who, what, where, and when to fire. They’d draw the line so as to allow remotely operated devices under human control, however, such as drones are now.

The signatories include Tesla CEO Elon Musk, Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, professor Stephen Hawking, Google DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis, and about 1,000 others. The letter will be presented at the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence Wednesday in Buenos Aires, according to the Guardian, which first reported the story.

AI as the third deadly revolution in warfare

According to the letter, “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.”

On the one hand, they say, artificial intelligence makes the battlefield safer. On the other, it lowers the risk of going to war, especially for the side that strikes first or has more and better AI weaponry.



Read more: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/210983-musk-hawking-woz-ban-ai-warfare-autonomous-weapons

[Judi Lynn]

1. Musk, Hawking warn of artificial intelligence weapons

Musk, Hawking warn of artificial intelligence weapons
By Cat Zakrzewski
Published: July 27, 2015 4:14 p.m. ET

The risk of robot wars popularized in science fiction series like “The Terminator” may be closer than we think, and a group of technology and artificial intelligence leaders is trying to stop it.

Famed astrophysicist Stephen Hawking, Tesla Motors Inc. TSLA, -4.67% founder Elon Musk and Apple Inc. AAPL, -1.39% co-founder Steve Wozniak are among the signatories of a letter presented today calling for a ban on autonomous weapons. The missive, unveiled by the Future of Life Institute at the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Argentina, labels autonomous weapons “the third revolution in warfare,” following gunpowder and nuclear arms.

“If any major military power pushes ahead with AI weapon development, a global arms race is virtually inevitable, and the endpoint of this technological trajectory is obvious: autonomous weapons will become the Kalashnikovs of tomorrow,” says the letter, which includes Skype co-founder Jaan Tallinn and prominent linguist Noam Chomsky as endorsers . “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.”

The experts warn that the deployment of autonomous systems may be possible in years not decades. They say a ban on such weapons “beyond meaningful human control” must be enacted to avoid an arms race they believe is more dangerous than the Cold War.

More:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/musk-hawking-warn-of-artificial-intelligence-weapons-2015-07-27-161031425

[newthinking]

2. Too much money to be made and lots of fodder for "practice"....

Do I need to use the sarcasm thingy?

[delrem]

3. Nice thought. But impossible.

Come on! The USA is upgrading it's nuke hardware, developing AI warfare techniques at a breakneck speed, is into 3rd and more generation drones... So how could anyone imagine that every other country that can do it isn't looking to do the same?

Look at the ridiculous lengths this latest Iran negotiation has gone, just to put the lid on one country -- while totally ignoring the surrounding situation of nuclear armed neighbours, of nuclear powers mounting wars of choice in the region to topple weak and disarmed governments, and the profligation of proxy wars manned by mercenaries flocking to hire on as the only occupation left after their countries are destroyed.

So yah, nice idea: ban AI warfare and autonomous weapons. While all hail to the smart bomb fired by drones, they being so cool because way down the line there's a human operator supposedly suffering from PTSD.

[bananas]

5. We've banned chemical and biological weapons, and nukes haven't been used in 70 years.

It's not impossible, and it's extremely important to do.

[delrem]

7. A lot of countries are still experimenting with chemical and biological weapons.

Including the USA.

The fact that nukes haven't been used in 70 years hardly deterred the negotiations with Iran w.r.t. their nuclear program, did it?
Why is that?

My problem with Musk, Hawking, Wozniak is that they're only concerned about certain military hardware, and history has shown that their concern has zero chance of being effective, for anything.

What the world needs are new non-exploitative and socially progressive systems, the spread of such systems and the consequent reduction in hostilities and paranoia, the consequent advance of beneficial partnerships and trust.

[nolabels]

8. The only fools that need war for thier prosper is that .01%

The rest of us just get sucked into it and it's been that way for thousands of years

[bananas]

9. You think the bans on chemical and biological weapons should be removed?

How about the bans on sulfur emissions that cause acid rain, and the bans on ozone-destroying pollutants?

There are a wide range of international restrictions on many technologies.

History has shown these bans to be very effective - and necessary.

Just because they are difficult, just because there have been violations, doesn't mean they aren't needed.

[delrem]

10. No. I'm saying that they're worthless unless enforceable.

And bans on weapons of any kind are unenforceable in a world governed by "a single superpower/world-police" that's also, in fact, the world's #1 arms dealer and war maker. Which condemns one country and exonerates others arbitrarily, according as which pays it's dues. Who or what coalition is going to take the USA to account? The USA doesn't subscribe to the world court, except to be used to attack enemies. For itself? Nope. And no, I'm not giving a free pass to all the other countries that're chafing at the bit to get out from under numero-uno's thumb and who see numero-uno's economy and method as definitive of what it takes to "win".

I clearly stated what I think and I did not state anything even approximating what you attribute to me. I said, I quote:
"What the world needs are new non-exploitative and socially progressive systems, the spread of such systems and the consequent reduction in hostilities and paranoia, the consequent advance of beneficial partnerships and trust. "

OK?

[Telcontar]

12. You think the bans have been effective?

Chemical weapons employed in Syria just last month.

[dougolat]

13. The War Machine is out of control ...it accepts few restrictions

Mostly the ones it can:

cheat on

use to hamper the competition

claim exception to, or exemption from

etc.

WMDs we've got them
we sell them
we give them away
and we USE 'em

The impending Artificial Intelligence weapons are by definition high-tech, so making it look like someone else's is just one more technicality.

[bananas]

4. k&r nt

[Moostache]

6. No hope. None.

We cannot get people to rally around the idea that global climate change is on the verge of catastrophic sea level rise, to say nothing of the other climatic fun house side effects we are going to experience in the next 5-15 years.

We cannot get our government to acknowledge simple truths like taxes on the rich cannot be cut further to ease their pain without inflicting massive pain on everyone else...even with 40+ years of data, clear trend lines and correlation, massive wealth transfer to the top and an evisceration of the former middle class.

Humanity is a doomed species. Evolution cannot take hold fast enough to eliminate the inertial pull of the bottom feeders and those they cultivate and use to maintain power and influence.

The future belongs to the roaches. They will over run this place by 2100 and never look back. Some future space-faring civilization will come across the rubble of our crude little civilization and wonder how the chitin-rich bugs ever managed to build those stone triangles...

And that is IF we don't figure out how to kill ourselves first with AI drones deciding to rid the planet of virus homo sapiens...yikes!

[GliderGuider]

14. Human civilization is a thermodynamic heat engine locked into a positive feedback loop of growth.

That's pretty much all you need to know in order to make a good guess at what the future is going to look like. I agree with your 5-15 year time horizon too.

It sucks, but it is what it is.

[Kablooie]

11. Why not just limit AI weapons to targeting enemy AI weapons.

Then we can all sit back and watch the war.

As our pockets empty out paying for the damned thing.

[wildbilln864]

15. k & r! n/t

[The2ndWheel]

16. That's where they draw the line?

Alright, but other people draw their own arbitrary lines somewhere else. As is the case throughout human history, the line that gets respected is the one that is won through force.

Who will win? A thousand or so people, or governments?

[4Q2u2]

17. Eye on the wrong Prize

If not the machines who's child? Certainly none of theirs.
Would those machines programmed to decide when to fire have parameters set by humans? I would be more worried about the systems being hacked and turned around against you. Why invade when you could just turn your own Army against you.

[mikehiggins]

18. Irony. The guys who'll invent Skynet are saying its a bad idea.

Lots of luck with that one.

With a bajillion of dollars available around the world to finance stuff like autonomous weaponry, a letter signed by a thousand humans is dust in the wind.