Palmer Luckey

Think about like anti-ship mines.

even purely defensive tools that are fundamentally autonomous.

Whether or not you use AI is a very modern problem.

It's one that people who haven't usually examined the problem fall into this trap.

And there's people who say things that sound pretty good, like, well, you should never allow a robot to pull the trigger.

You should never allow AI to decide who lives and who dies.

I look at it in a different way.

I think that...

The ethics of warfare are so fraught and the decisions so difficult that to artificially box yourself in and refuse to use sets of technology that could lead to better results is an abdication of responsibility.

There's no moral high ground in saying, I refuse to use AI because I don't want minds to be able to tell the difference between a school bus full of children and Russian armor.

There's a thousand problems like this.

The right way to look at this is problem by problem,

Is this ethical?

Are people taking responsibility for this use of force?

It's not to write off an entire category of technology and in doing so tie our hands behind our backs and hope we can still win.

I can't abide by that.

Precisely.

And people will say things, usually non-technical people, like, why not just make it all remote control?

And they don't recognize that the scale of these conflicts we're talking about, they don't lend themselves to a one-to-one ratio of people to systems.

It's to say nothing of the fact that if you're a remotely piloted system, all you have to do is break the remote part and everything falls apart.