Ban the killer robots before it's too late

[Renew Deal]

(CNN) -- As wars become increasingly automated, we must ask ourselves how far we want to delegate responsibility to machines. Where do we want to draw the line?

Weapons systems have been evolving for millennia and there have always been attempts to resist them. But does that mean that we should just sit back and accept our fate and hand over the ultimate responsibility for killing to machines?

Over the last few months there has been an increasing debate about the use of fully autonomous robot weapons: armed robots that once launched can select their own targets and kill them without further human intervention.

Some have argued that robots could be more accurate on the battlefield than human soldiers and save more civilian lives. But this is speculation based on assumptions about future developments of computer hardware and software. It is no more than "hopeware" -- since the 1950s, Artificial Intelligence has moved at a snail's pace compared to what proponents have predicted.
<snip>

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/03/opinion/killer-robots-new-arms-race/index.html

[Cooley Hurd]

1. They need Old Glory Insurance...

http://www.hulu.com/#!watch/2340

[arcane1]

2. I suspect they would end up as a cash cow for defense contractors

They'll keep failing to deliver, and thus need a few billion more here and there, and then next year they will deliver.

Next year comes, and they need a few billion more, and another year.

[cbrer]

3. It IS too late.

The Plutocracy has set the wheels into motion.

And American citizens aren't going to do a goddam thing about it besides B.M.C.
(bitch, moan, complain)

[bemildred]

4. They had better make them self-repairing if they want to really compete.

Being able to grow new little robots would be good too, and they need to be solar or something where you don't need fuel all the time.