How is 'saying no' going to stop the military of this or any other country from doing it? How do you measure the disadvantage we'd be at by not allowing our military to do it, but letting other militaries (over which we have no control) do it?

Having a spine has nothing to do with it.

So, basically another arms race to the bottom, similar to nuclear warheads ? 1940s thinking with 2016 technology. I hear what you're saying but not all progress is good progress.

The limits of our ability to think a global scale are an issue, we still have a tribe mentality, this discussion demonstrates that. "The Chinese, The British etc"

We still think in terms of tribes, but we have technology change the world. Until we evolve some more we're probably not fit to wield more and more powerful weapons.

It would be good if we could stop worrying about weaponry all together and focus on real issues like deforestation, poverty, pollution of the sea, climate change etc.

I get it, and I wholeheartedly support your position on the issue. The reality, unfortunately, is that we are horrid little creatures always scheming and fighting for power. Stopping nation X from doing, will only encourage nations Y and Z to develop it faster as an advantage.

The only way I can see an agreement to limit the escalation of AI warfare is on the same context we saw the START treaty: once the weapons are developed by at least two key players as "deterrent" there's an incentive to reach an agreement to stop further development.

Call me cynical, but if this election has shown me anything is how tiny-minded people still command an inordinate amount of power in this country.

How do you plan to convince China and Russia to stop worrying about weaponry and thinking in terms of tribes?

Ok, for conversation sake we all come together and say, "No, AI cannot be used for offensive or defensive military actions".

How do you propose that ban be enforced?

All 7 billion of us? Good luck with that.

I agree with you, it's a virtually impossible task.

The commenter I was responding to has strong ideas about it however, so I wanted to provide the opportunity for an explanation.

What are you willing to sacrifice to say no? How about your immediate comfort and free time. Thats the real cost. Its not "when it happens we'll stabd togethor", Its "youtube videos or protecting the world from a potential future threat that everyone will think Im crazy for worrying about"

Good luck convincing South Korea, Japan, India, the EU, Britain, Australia, Canada....

I'd be curious to hear more of your argument. The world is a complex place. How do you protect the one's you love when others exist who wouldn't say no?

Eventually the only people left are those who wouldn't say no

Scientific research and progress: just say no.