On Mar 28, 3:01 pm, "rick++" <rick...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 27, 12:42 pm, c...@kcwc.com (Curt Welch) wrote:
>
>
>
> > "rick++" <rick...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > I wonder if "killer robot planes" used by the
> > > United States in middle east wars count.
> > > People in these countries claim its a form
> > > of terrorism to have planes come "out of the blue"
> > > and bomb them.  Countrer-reports like a recent
> > > 60 Minutes story says the military goes through
> > > several level of decision before allowing a kill.
> > > They take colalteral damage of killing civilians
> > > seriously.
>
> > Not really.  All the UAVs are remotely operated by humans currently so it's
> > no different than having a solder pointing a gun and pulling the trigger or
> > the air force dropping bombs.
> > None the less, it's not yet an AI issue.  However, once they have the
> > decisions made by some AI technology on who to kill and who not to kill,
> > then we will have reached the point of having to fear the AIs.
>
> A lot of of the signal collection and discrimination is delegated to
> automated
> sensors in orbit or drones.  And the data-mining is routinely blackbox
> computing.
> Agreed, a human intervenes in the decision to send the final bomb or
> bullet,
> although the bomb or bullet is then fully computerized.
>
> Just becasue the "A.I." isnt contained in a two-meter humanoid shell,
> doesnt mean
> that substantial parts of the system are highly computerized and
> automated.
>
> So when the bomb hits the wrong target, how much of the decision was
> due to
> humans and how much was computer-aided?  Its not black and white
> anymore.

The answer is simple:

"And then Isan, the cooking monk, tipped over the urn with his foot
and became the chief head dude of the monastery."