Similarly, Wallach [283] discuss the topic of autonomous robotic weaponry and note that the US military is seeking to eventually transition to a state where the human operators of robot weapons are 'on the loop' rather than 'in the loop'. In other words, whereas a human was previously required to explicitly give the order before a robot was allowed to initiate possibly lethal activity, in the future humans are meant to merely supervise the robotʼs actions and interfere if something goes wrong.Human Rights Watch [90] reports on a number of military systems which are becoming increasingly autonomous, with the human oversight for automatic weapons defense systems—designed to detect and shoot down incoming missiles and rockets—already being limited to accepting or overriding the computerʼs plan of action in a matter of seconds. Although these systems are better described as automatic, carrying out pre-programmed sequences of actions in a structured environment, than autonomous, they are a good demonstration of a situation where rapid decisions are needed and the extent of human oversight is limited. A number of militaries are considering the future use of more autonomous weapons.

The weaponisation of AI has indeed already begun, so it is not a danger that needs pointing out. It suits the military to give drones, and so forth, greater autonomy, but it also suits the military to retain overall control....they are not going to build a God AI that is also a weapon, since there is no military mileagei n building a weapon that might attack you out of its own volition. So weaponised AI is limited agentive AI. Since the military want .to retain overall control, they will in effect conduct their own safety research, increasing the controlability of their systems in parallel with their increasing autonomy. MIRIs research is not very relevant to weaponised AI, because MIRI focuses on the hidden dangers of apparently benevolent AI, and on god AIs, powerful singletons.

As with a boxed AGI, there are many factors that would tempt the owners of an Oracle AI to transform it to an autonomously acting agent. Such an AGI would be far more effective in furthering its goals, but also far more dangerous.

You may be tacitly assuming that an AI is either passive, like Oracle AI , .or dangerously agentive. But we already have agentive AIs that haven't killed us.

I am making a three way distinction between 1. Non agentive AI 2. Limited agentive AI 3. Maximally agentive AI, .or "God" AI.

Non agentive AI is passive, doing nothing once it has finished processing its current request. It is typified by Oracle AI. Limited agentive AI performs specific functions, and operates under effective overrides and safety protocols. (For instance, whilst it would destroy the effectiveness of automated trading software to have a human okaying each trade, it nonetheless has kill switches and sanity checks). Both are examples of Tool AI. Tool AI can be used to do dangerous  things, but the responsibility ultimately falls on the tool us Maximally agentive AI is not passive by default, and has a wide range if capabilities. It may be in charge of other AIs, or have effectors that allow it to take real world actions directly. Attempts may have been made to add safety features, but their effectiveness would be in doubt...thatis just the hard problem of AI friendliness that MIRI writes so much about.

The contrary view is that there is no need to render God AIs safe technologically, because other is no incentive to build them.(Which does not mean the whole field of AI safety is pointless

ETA

On the other hand you may be distinguishing between limited and maximal agency, but arguing that there is a slippery slope leading from the one to the other. The political analogy shows that people are capable of putting a barrier across the slope: people are generally happy to give some power to some politicians, but resist moves to give all the power to one person.

On the other hand, people might be tempted to give AIs more power once they have a track record of reliability, but a track record of reliability is itself a kind of empirical safety proof.