Ok. Then tell me this. Who decides who is a "fascist dictator" which should be taken out? What if President Y of Country Z who was democratically elected doesn't want to follow 'your rules'?
Did you miss the part where I said "transparency and oversight for military use"?
Why do you suppose that it's possible to have justice mechanisms when it comes to ordinary murderers, but somehow impossible for murders who happen to be part of an oppressive regime? Should we also give up on prosecuting normal murder?
If President Y of Country Z decides not to follow rules, and violates human rights in the process, then the answer should be patently obvious to you already, I'm not sure why it's not clear. In fact I've already stated it. If a leader is a fascist dictator, then it's OK to take them out.
Whether or not a leader is a fascist dictator is not a subjective matter. Either a leader
is doing things like murdering or locking up his citizens for victimless crimes, or a leader isn't. In the former case the rest of the world
have a moral right to defend the innocent against the murderer/violator, and in the latter case they don't.
International courts could easily be established to weigh evidence (transparently, and with oversight). In fact there already exist such mechanisms.
You fear for your live. You run to the nearest home to ask for help and the robot takes you out? Or your teenager sneaks out and comes home with some new buddies, the robot sees the buddies first.
This is a pure strawman argument, and delirious - killer robots aren't going to shoot randomly at anyone they see, don't be ridiculous, this isn't "Robocop" - on the contrary, they will (and can rightfully) be subject to the exact same moral constraints that are applied to humans currently. For example, under South African law, you quite reasonably can't shoot someone unless they are presently attacking you, or are clearly about to attack you, and there is thus an immediate threat of violence. Intelligent killer robots will be subject to the
exact same requirements - their algorithms would have to identify an actual imminent, or underway, threat of violence.
If we can assume that such robots would be subject to these requirements, then why would you still be against them?
A robot that fails to reasonably attempt to do so, its owner would probably reasonably be liable for whatever happens. You don't seem to understand though, we already have machine vision algorithms that can identify things like guns or knives, as well as behavioural recognition and prediction algorithms. In 20 or 30 years time, algorithms will be very good - probably better than humans - at objectively determining (with a high degree of accuracy) if an actual threat is present.
So what the robots will do is actually protect your teenage daughter if her 'buddies' decide to rape her, but will do nothing if not.
Haven't laughed this hard in a LONG time, mybb is comedy GOLD! 10/10
So the fact that all you can do is giggle, I'll take as confirmation that you lack a well-thought-out reasoned response.
Violation of human rights to ban killer robots? Are you saying a killer robot is the only way to protect your family?
I didn't say it'll be the "only way", but it will be
a way, and you in fact don't have a right to use force to force others to not defend their own life in some particular way that they prefer, unless that method is actually a provable threat to you. And unless your knowledge of machine intelligence is based on Hollywood movies, intelligent "killer robots" just aren't going to be (unless wielded by, say, a fascist government - in which case some other government
should be allowed to come to your defense ... and if their methods to do so are banned, oh well, it's tough luck for you).
