• mondo_brondo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    I see a headline like this and think, “oh fuck they’re definitely developing that, if they haven’t already.”

  • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    I wonder what AI is defined as for this. Because no way is the US giving up it’s advanced targeting and senior fusion capabilities, which some would call AI from the broad definition.

  • generalpotato@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Neither the US or China is going to honor this. We all know that. I’d rather be comfortable with some body that mandates war-time guidelines ala Geneva conventions than outright bans, which don’t really work

    • PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Problem is doing that violates the principal of national sovereignty, which is basically the underpinning of how the entire international system works post WWII

  • systemglitch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    And Russia sees their chance to finally grab the advantage.

    There is zero chance AI won’t end up in weapons, no matter what treaties are signed, because there is no putting the cap back on this bottle.

    WE ARE DOOOOMED. ;)

  • kandoh@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    10 months ago

    Counter:

    Both should build the ultimate AI warriors and henceforth settle all conflicts with a battle royal.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    nuclear warhead control

    Have they not seen, like, any Hollywood movie about an AI in control of nuclear weapons?

  • Makeitstop@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    I would assume that this agreement would only be regarding fully autonomous AI. That is, AI that are able to act independently and make the decision to strike without human intervention. I don’t see the US agreeing to give up the drones that are supposed to be flying wingman to future fighters.

    Or, given the source, this article could just be intended to pressure the US to agree to restrictions, and to set the stage for being outraged if they don’t.

  • Rapidcreek@reddthat.comOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    How open is Pandora’s box? That is the real question. This may be seen as a bigger move in the future.

    • PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      I could imagine Biden and Dems upholding their end, Drones are an inaccurate enough problem tactic when you’ve got a trained airman on the cam doing confirmation flyovers. I could see SOME republicans doing the same for the same reason.

      Trump would straight up be measuring mission success by how much collateral that could have happened did happen. Like the man would ban the use of the flying ginsu for not being terrifying enough because it only shreds the area of a medium sized car with all those spring out blades.

      Xi, I think Xi will gesture towards the internationally perceived “right answer” while pretty openly making sure all options remain available to his command. Xi is definitely that guy who measures his chess performance by how many options he’s kept open even into the closing phases of the game.