Sigh.....
I was going to try to preempt any political junk in this.
But the 2nd comment in..
Oh sure.... take the side of Skynet... or you meant 2nd reply in. 🤔😉🙃😜
I'm on the fence on the debate of robots killing people, if it can better determine combatant vs non-combatant, then I'd say that's an improvement over the classical method. 💀
It is true that over time, IN GENERAL, collateral damage / non-combatant deaths have been a lower percentage from generation to generation, but that has also come about from computer assisted devices like guidance systems, smart bombs, drones, etc. The idea that a human is on the other end doesn't really change the result for the target. However if it is possible to be more precise and also put fewer people at general risk [targeted drone vs artillery and spray&pray unguided rockets/missiles from helis/trucks], then is the tradeoff worthwhile?
It's definitely far superior to A,B,C weaponry, which is much worse than Ai IMO. ☢️☣️📛
So if you don't completely ban the former, then the latter is fair game, even if they all pose existential threats. ☠️
Just don't give the latter control of the former, keep it conventional. 🧐