Should the United States build physical and cyber Terminators, weapons that do not have a human in the loop? The unequivocal answer from the prestigious Defense Science Board is yes.

This is an automatic summary, original reduced by 73%.

WASHINGTON: Should the United States build physical and cyber Terminators, weapons that do not have a human in the loop? The unequivocal answer from the prestigious Defense Science Board is yes.

Machines and computers can process much more data much more quickly than can humans, "Enabling the U.S. to act inside an adversary's operations cycle." And that is why it is "Vital if the U.S. is to sustain military advantage." Ruth David, of the National Science Foundation and coauthor of three books on signal processing algorithms, and retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Paul Nielsen, co-authored the study.

Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Paul Selva, repeated his cautious embrace of autonomous weapons today at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Breaking D readers will remember his use of the wonderful term "Terminator Conundrum" to describe the ethical issues the military faces as it allows weapons to make decisions in battle without a human being.

Today, I asked him again if the US should pursue treaty or other international restrictions on the weapons and he didn't address it directly.

Selva appeared to agree with Frank Kendall, the head of Pentagon acquisition, who worries that enemies will not care as much about the ethical niceties of allowing a robot to kill human beings.

Summary Source | FAQ | Theory | Feedback | Top five keywords: weapons^#1 autonomous^#2 human^#3 study^#4 military^#5

Post found in /r/technology and /r/Intelligence.

NOTICE: This thread is for discussing the submission topic only. Do not discuss the concept of the autotldr bot here.