[ricardobeat]

> The technology can just be requisitioned

During a war with national mobilization, that would make sense. Or in a country like China. This kind of coercion is not an expected part of democratic rule.

[wrqvrwvq]

It has always been a part of democratic rule, in peacetime and war. All telco's share virtually all of their technology with the government. Governments in europe and elsewhere routinely requisition services from many of their large corporations. I think it's absurd to think llm's can meaningfully participate in realworld cmd+ctrl systems and the government already has access to ml-enhanced targeting capabilities. I really have no idea what dod normies think of ai, other than that it's infinitely smarter than them, but that's not saying much.

[ricardobeat]

Not the same thing. The parent comment was talking about government “requisiting” services as in forceful compliance, takeovers, not collaboration or regulatory compliance.

[not_that_d]

I would like to see a proof of this happening in Europa.

[beepbooptheory]

Makes me think of Operation Paperclip [1]. It happened after the war though, and its not China, but I think it helps your point!

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip

[helaoban]

The question of whether or not the government should be able to use AI for targeting without the involvement of humans is a wartime question, since that is the only time the military should be killing people.

Under such a scenario, requisition applies, and so all of this talk is moot.

The fact that the military is killing people without a declaration of war is the problem, and that's where energy and effort should be directed.

Edit:

There's a yet larger question on whether any legal constraints on the military's use of technology even makes sense at all, since any safeguards will be quickly yielded if a real enemy presents itself. As a course of natural law, no society will willingly handicap its means of defense against an external threat.

It follows then that the only time these ethical concerns apply is when we are the aggressor, which we almost always are. It's the aggression that we should be limiting, not the technology.

[anon84873628]

You could view various non-proliferation agreements as a legislative constraint on military technology.

Same for chemical and biologicals. Those do prove your point that the law will be ignored if expedient. But it doesn't invalidate the notion of a society putting constraints on itself.

[tw1984]

> an expected part of democratic rule.

give yourself a break. what your fancy democratic rule still holds under Trump?

[anon84873628]

Yeah, we all know that. They were making a point in response to the parent.

[ricardobeat]

Some of us don’t live in the USA.

[kristjansson]

This cynicism is the surest way to doom it