So, basically another arms race to the bottom, similar to nuclear warheads ? 1940s thinking with 2016 technology. I hear what you're saying but not all progress is good progress.
The limits of our ability to think a global scale are an issue, we still have a tribe mentality, this discussion demonstrates that. "The Chinese, The British etc"
We still think in terms of tribes, but we have technology change the world. Until we evolve some more we're probably not fit to wield more and more powerful weapons.
It would be good if we could stop worrying about weaponry all together and focus on real issues like deforestation, poverty, pollution of the sea, climate change etc.
I get it, and I wholeheartedly support your position on the issue. The reality, unfortunately, is that we are horrid little creatures always scheming and fighting for power. Stopping nation X from doing, will only encourage nations Y and Z to develop it faster as an advantage.
The only way I can see an agreement to limit the escalation of AI warfare is on the same context we saw the START treaty: once the weapons are developed by at least two key players as "deterrent" there's an incentive to reach an agreement to stop further development.
Call me cynical, but if this election has shown me anything is how tiny-minded people still command an inordinate amount of power in this country.
The limits of our ability to think a global scale are an issue, we still have a tribe mentality, this discussion demonstrates that. "The Chinese, The British etc"
We still think in terms of tribes, but we have technology change the world. Until we evolve some more we're probably not fit to wield more and more powerful weapons.
It would be good if we could stop worrying about weaponry all together and focus on real issues like deforestation, poverty, pollution of the sea, climate change etc.