[HN Gopher] 60 Nations agree to regulate AI in the military befo...
___________________________________________________________________
60 Nations agree to regulate AI in the military before it destroys
the world
Author : rntn
Score : 18 points
Date : 2023-02-17 20:04 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theregister.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theregister.com)
| mrguyorama wrote:
| FYI, the US, or at least the navy, has grappled with letting a
| computer shoot at things since the 50s, when they first
| computerized target tasking and prioritization and fleet
| networking. It was explicitly discussed that older navy folk were
| wary of letting the machines make decisions, so they purposely
| designed it in a way that a human was the one giving firing
| permission.
|
| By the 80s however, we were willing to let at least one system
| operate entirely autonomously, the Phalanx CIWS, and that
| decision has already lead to a few friendly fire incidents
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS#Incidents
|
| The US military already has experience allowing computers to make
| death happen, and Raytheon is likely already testing an "AI pulls
| the trigger with no intervention" system right now. If we are
| unwilling to implement laws against that right now, then it will
| 100% happen.
| sylware wrote:
| When I think war AI, I am thinking 3 levels: the global
| coordinating AI on a battle field, the AIs of a swarm of "killer
| robots"/weapons (should not work with good EM jamming), the
| embedded AI in each "killer robot"/weapon with a local non-
| jammable tactical "vision" (should not be very interesting due to
| the very limited "size" of an "embeddable" AI).
|
| I am a dota2 player, and I very well remember E.Musk openAI: a
| team of 5 independent AIs with each a different set of skills
| based on the hero... and they had to slow them down and make them
| inaccurate...
|
| In the end, I cannot see clearly where an AI would pertinently
| fit in a battle. Stategic assistance?
| sorokod wrote:
| Each of the AIs you mentioned may have a dedicated counter AI
| fielded by the opponent.
| revolvingocelot wrote:
| What matters is an AI's ability to do things that human
| combatants cannot, and that which human opponents cannot
| effectively counter.
|
| As you refer to videogame AI, think back to the Berkeley
| Overmind, a Starcraft 1 Zerg AI that beat seasoned humans by
| the simple expedient of being able to shuffle around mutalisks
| [0] in such a way that no human micromanagement could
| efficiently kill any. The only realistic way to defeat the
| Berkeley Overmind, as I recall the decade-old coverage, was to
| attack the AI's base before it could build the tech necessary
| to spawn mutalisks.
|
| [0] Mutalisks are a Zerg air unit whose attack bounces from
| enemy to enemy. Like all Zerg units, it regenerates health
| gradually, so the AI's chief tactic of moving even slightly
| damaged units to the back of the battlegroup allowed surprising
| compounding benefits.
| credit_guy wrote:
| > I cannot see clearly where an AI would pertinently fit in a
| battle
|
| Here's a scenario: one F-35 together with about two dozen loyal
| wingman drones [1]. The drones stay within line of sight of the
| F-35, so they are immune to electronic warfare of the kind that
| lead to the capture of a US drone by Iran in 2011 [2]. The F-35
| pilot assigns the drones high-level missions, like take care of
| the incoming bogeys in the north-east sector. The drones then
| use AI to coordinate their actions in an optimal way and carry
| out the mission. Some of the drones are lost. No biggie.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_MQ-28_Ghost_Bat
|
| [2]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incid...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-02-17 23:01 UTC)