I do make that mistake sometimes, however, this is not one of those times:
A. Whether I am knowledgeable here isn't very important (as opposed to the context in which I wrote that comment).
I am not even advising people to agree on a particular strategy, I am spreading the word and getting them to think about it. Even if I tried to advise them, I don't expect LessWrong would take my ideas at face value and blindly follow them. In this case, evaluating and expressing opinions on this subject serves the purpose of getting people to think. Getting people to think is important in this case because this particular problem is likely to require that a large number of people get involved in their own fate. They're the ones that currently provide the checks and balances on government power. If they simply let the powerful decide amongst themselves, they may find that the powerful choose to maximize their power. Unfortunately, I don't currently know of anyone who is qualified and trustworthy enough to advise them on what's likely to happen and which method is likely to succeed, but at least stirring up debate and discussion will get them thinking about this. The more people think about it now, the more likely they are to have a decently well informed opinion and make functional choices later on. My knowledge level is adequate for this particular purpose.
Nobody else is currently doing it for us:
There are no parties of sufficient size that I know of who are taking responsibility for spreading the word on this to make sure that a critical mass is reached. I've scoured the internet and not found a group dedicated to this. The closest we have, to my knowledge, is Suarez. Suarez is an author, and he seems bright and dedicated to spreading the word. I'm sure he's done research and put thought into this, and he is getting attention, but he's not enough. This cause needs an effort much larger and much more well-researched than one guy can pull off.
I "get it", but not everyone does.
My areas of knowledge are definitely not optimal for this and I have no intentions of dedicating my life to this issue, but as a person who "gets it", I can perhaps convince a small group of relevant people (people who are likely to be interested in the subject) to seriously consider the issue. As we have seen, I have a greater understanding of this issue than some of the posters - I am explaining things like how land mines are not even comparable to killer robots in terms of their potential to win wars / wreck democracy. Somebody who "gets it" needs to be around to explain these kinds of things, or there may not be enough people in the group who "get it". I am mildly special because I "get it" and am willing to discuss this so other people "get it".
I am aware of this risk sooner than they are.
Perhaps most important: I am aware of this risk sooner. (Explained in my next point.)
C. What I am doing is actually much bigger than it looks.
I've seen the LessWrong Google Analytics. Some posts have accumulated 200,000+ visits over time. As I understand it, word spreads in an exponential fashion. Therefore, the more people that know about this in the beginning, the more people will know about it later. Even if this post got only 1,000 reads, entering those 1,000 reads into the beginning of the exponential growth curve is likely to result in many, many times as many people knowing about this. My post could, over the years, result in millions of people finding out about this sooner.
It only takes a relatively small investment for me to help spread the word about this and I view the benefits as being worth that investment.
Conclusion:
If you "get it" and you care about this risk, I urge you to do the same thing. Post about this on Facebook, on Twitter, on other forums - wherever you have the ability to get a group of people to think about this. The couple of minutes it takes to tell 20 people now could mean that hundreds of people find out sooner. If any of you decide to spread the word, comment. I'd like to know.
If you "get it" and you care about this risk, I urge you to do the same thing. Post about this on Facebook, on Twitter, on other forums - wherever you have the ability to get a group of people to think about this. The couple of minutes it takes to tell 20 people now could mean that hundreds of people find out sooner. If any of you decide to spread the word, comment. I'd like to know.
I perceive plenty of risks regarding future military technology that are likely to result in the loss of life and liberty. People with power no longer requiring th...
A new TED talk video just came out by Daniel Suarez, author of Daemon, explaining how autonomous combat drones with a capability called "lethal autonomy" pose a threat to democracy. Lethal autonomy is what it sounds like - the ability of a robot to kill a human without requiring a human to make the decision.
He explains that a human decision-maker is not a necessity for combat drones to function. This has potentially catastrophic consequences, as it would allow a small number of people to concentrate a very large amount of power, ruining the checks and balances of power between governments and their people and the checks and balances of power between different branches of government. According to Suarez, about 70 countries have begun developing remotely piloted drones (like predator drones), the precursor to killer robots with lethal autonomy.
Daniel Suarez: The kill decision shouldn't belong to a robot
One thing he didn't mention in this video is that there's a difference in obedience levels between human soldiers and combat drones. Drones are completely obedient but humans can throw a revolt. Because they can rebel, human soldiers provide some obstacles to limit the power that would-be tyrants could otherwise obtain. Drones won't provide this type of protection whatsoever. Obviously, relying on human decision making is not perfect. Someone like Hitler can manage to convince people to make poor ethical choices - but still, they need to be convinced, and that requirement may play a major role in protecting us. Consider this - it's unthinkable that today's American soldiers might suddenly decide this evening to follow a tyrannical leader whose goal is to have total power and murder all who oppose. It is not, however, unthinkable at all that the same tyrant, if empowered by an army of combat drones, could successfully launch such an attack without risking a mutiny. The amount and variety of power grabs a tyrant with a robot army of sufficient power can get away with is unlimited.
Something else he didn't mention is that because we can optimize technologies more easily than we can optimize humans, it may be possible to produce killer robots in less time than it takes to build armies of human soldiers and with less expense than training and paying those soldiers. Considering the salaries and benefits paid to soldiers and the 18 year wait time on human development, it is possible that an overwhelmingly large army of killer robots could be built more quickly than human armies and with fewer resources.
Suarez's solution is to push for legislation that makes producing robots with lethal autonomy illegal. There are, obviously, pros and cons to this method. Another method (explored in Daemon) is that if the people have 3-D printers, then the people may be able to produce comparable weapons which will then check and balance their government's power. This method has pros and cons as well. I came up with a third method which is here. I think it's better than the alternatives but I would like more feedback.
As far as I know, no organization, not even MIRI (I checked), is dedicated to preventing the potential political disasters caused by near-term tool AI (MIRI is interested in the existential risks posed by AGI). That means it's up to us - the people - to develop our understanding of this subject and spread the word to others. Of all the forums on the internet, LessWrong is one of the most knowledgeable when it comes to artificial intelligence, so it's a logical place to fire up a discussion on this. I searched LessWrong for terms like "checks and balances" and "Daemon" and I just don't see evidence that we've done a group discussion on this issue. I'm starting by proposing and exploring some possible solutions to this problem and some pros and cons of each.
To keep things organized, let's put each potential solution, pro and con into a separate comment.