Jump to content
The World News Media

Elon Musk and tech leaders call for UN ban of ‘killer robots’ and AI weapons


Guest

Recommended Posts

  • Guest

Serial tech entrepreneur Elon Musk and over 100 leaders in the field of artificial intelligence and robotics have come together, calling on the United Nations to take action against the use of autonomous weapons, or ‘killer robots’.



“Lethal autonomous weapons threaten to become the third revolution in warfare. Once developed, they will permit armed conflict to be fought at a scale greater than ever, and at timescales faster than humans can comprehend.” warns the group of tech leaders in an open letter to the UN.

This marks the first time world leaders in the field of robotics and AI have collectively issued a ‘warning letter’ to the UN in such great numbers. The open letter follows formal discussions originally scheduled to take place in December 2016 when 123 UN member nations called for a meeting on the topic of lethal autonomous weapons. However, the meeting was delayed by the UN to August 21 citing insufficient funding at the time.

116 tech leaders, including Tesla and SpaceX chief Elon Musk as well as Google Alphabet’s Mustafa Suleyman, released the letter titled ‘An Open Letter to the UnitedNations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons’ on Sunday at the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Melbourne. In the letter, the group of experts warn the UN that “we do not have long to act”.

“These can be weapons of terror, weapons that despots and terrorists use against innocent populations, and weapons hacked to behave in undesirable ways. We do not have long to act. Once this Pandora’s box is opened, it will be hard to close.”

Stuart Russell, founder and vice-president of Bayesian Logic said in a statement accompanying the letter, “Unless people want to see new weapons of mass destruction – in the form of vast swarms of lethal microdrones – spreading around the world, it’s imperative to step up and support the United Nations’ efforts to create a treaty banning lethal autonomous weapons. This is vital for national and international security,”

Toby Walsh, professor of artificial intelligence at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, added in a statement accompanying the letter “We need to make decisions today choosing which of these futures we want. I strongly support the call by many humanitarian and other organizations for an UN ban on such weapons, similar to bans on chemical and other weapons,”

The coming together of world leaders in the field of artificial intelligence and robotics, and their issue of stern warning against the dangers of ‘killer robots’, validates Musk’s concerns about the impact on human life if AI is to left unregulated.

“I have exposure to the most cutting edge AI and I think people should be really concerned about it,” Musk once said in a speech at the National Governors Association meeting in Rhode Island. “I keep sounding the alarm bell, but until people see robots going down the street killing people, they don’t know how to react because it seems so ethereal.”

Musk’s OpenAI, a nonprofit research group that supports emerging artificial intelligence technology that is safe and responsible, aims to assist regulators with coming up with responsible means to control the development of AI and ensure AI does not become “a fundamental risk to the existence of human civilization”.

“By the time we are reactive, it’s too late,” Musk has continued to warn. “There’s a role for regulators that I think is very important and I’m against over regulation for sure, but I think we better get on that with AI.”

 

The post Elon Musk and tech leaders call for UN ban of ‘killer robots’ and AI weapons appeared first on TESLARATI.com.

Via

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 174
  • Replies 0
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Popular Days

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...




  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • … and donchew forget now … the GB now allows Sisters to come to meetings and go out in field service in slacks or Mumus.  Or slacks AND Mumus, if poundage appropriate. Did I ever mention I once dated a Sister that made Mumus out of parachutes? She was an Opera singer, and had a UN diplomatic passport. She was on “speed”, couldn’t blink, and typed 600 words a minute with 100% errors. Occasionally she would get lipstick in her eyebrows.  
    • In my perspective, when the Smithsonian Magazine covers a topic, I am inclined to trust their expertise. As for the shadows here, I see no benefit in entertaining irrational ideas from others. Let them hold onto their own beliefs. We shouldn't further enable their self-deception and misleading of the public.  
    • Hey Self! 🤣I came across this interesting conspiracy theory. There are scholars who firmly believe in the authenticity of those artifacts. I value having conversations with myself. The suggestion of a mentally ill person has led to the most obscure manifestation of a group of sorrowful individuals. 😁
    • I have considered all of their arguments. Some even apply VAT 4956 to their scenarios, which is acceptable. Anyone can use secular evidence if they genuinely seek understanding. Nonetheless, whether drawing from scripture or secular history, 607 is a plausible timeframe to believe in. People often misuse words like "destruction", "devastation", and "desolation" in an inconsistent manner, similar to words like "besiege", "destroy", and "sack". When these terms are misapplied to man-made events, they lose their true meaning. This is why with past historians, the have labeled it as follows: First Capture of Jerusalem 606 BC Second Capture of Jerusalem 598 BC Third Capture of Jerusalem 587 BC Without taking into account anything else.  Regarding the second account, if we solely rely on secular chronology, the ancient scribes made military adaptations to align with the events recorded in the Babylonian Chronicles. However, the question arises: Can we consider this adaptation as accurate?  Scribes sought to include military components in their stories rather than focusing solely on biblical aspects. Similarly, astronomers, who were also scholars, made their observations at the king's request to divine omens, rather than to understand the plight of the Jewish people. Regarding the third capture, we can only speculate because there are no definitive tablets like the Babylonian chronicles that state 598. It is possible that before the great tribulation, Satan will have influenced someone to forge more Babylonian chronicles in order to discredit the truth and present false evidence from the British Museum, claiming that the secular view was right all along. This could include documents supposedly translated after being found in 1935, while others were found in the 1800s. The Jewish antiquities authorities have acknowledged the discovery of forged items, while the British Museum has not made similar acknowledgments. It is evident that the British Museum has been compelled to confess to having looted or stolen artifacts which they are unwilling to return. Consequently, I find it difficult to place my trust in the hands of those who engage in such activities. One of the most notable instances of deception concerning Jewish antiquities was the widely known case of the ossuary belonging to James, the brother of Jesus. I was astonished by the judge's inexplicable justification for acquittal, as it was evident that his primary concern was preserving the reputation of the Jewish nation, rather than unearthing the truth behind the fraudulent artifact. The judge before even acknowledged it. "In his decision, the judge was careful to say his acquittal of Golan did not mean the artifacts were necessarily genuine, only that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Golan had faked them." The burden of proof is essential. This individual not only forged the "Jehoash Tablet," but also cannot be retried for his deceit. Why are they so insistent on its authenticity? To support their narrative about the first temple of Jerusalem. Anything to appease the public, and deceive God. But then again, after the Exodus, when did they truly please God? So, when it comes to secular history, it's like a game of cat and mouse.  
  • Members

    No members to show

  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      159.4k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,680
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Col310
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.