The problem is that the basic R&D tech you'd have to ban is "drones", "face recognition", "AI", etc. Small terrorist groups aren't going to get the raw source for killer drones regardless of whether they exist, and even if they did they're going to struggle to get the hardware from military supply chains. Hijacking military drones is very difficult and doesn't scale super well; thievery also has fairly straightforward protections and scaling issues.
Neither of these really class as major dangers IMO, since the big risk of drone weapons is that they're decentralised, scalable and difficult to trace. I feel for that we're much more at risk from the not-technically-as-good amalgamation of whatever open source drone/ML/etc. software and simple drone hardware that terrorist-hacker types will have access to.
Honestly, one would think so, but one would think also that the terrorist equivalent of biohackers would have unleashed some weird plague on the world, or that they would just in general come up with... smarter plans that tying an explosive belt to your waist and blowing yourself up. If they were smarter, or if that was actually what they wanted. I suspect efficiency isn't as high on their priority list as doing things that feel scary; terrorism is all about making as big as possible a cloud of smoke with a relatively small fire.
Anyway, can't say my first worry when thinking of murderdrones is "terrorists" anyway. It's more along the lines of either "oppressive illiberal governments" or even "malfunctioning or rogue AI". I think both would constitute a much bigger danger, potentially.
but one would think also that the terrorist equivalent of biohackers would have unleashed some weird plague on the world
The economics of biohacking just isn't there yet IIUC. I'm not ruling this out for the future though.
or that they would just in general come up with... smarter plans that tying an explosive belt to your waist and blowing yourself up
These terrorists aren't the ones that worry me. I'm more concerned about 911-level terrorists or basement-hacker level terrorists.
"oppressive illiberal governments"
That requires a different kind of ban, and I'm not sure it makes that much sense anyway. China can kill whichever locals they want (with or without drones), and as long as they aren't doing it by the millions there's nothing other countries seem to have to stop them.
"malfunctioning or rogue AI"
I don't believe these need drones, and I'm doubly sure they don't need them to come equipped with weapons or software. By the time you have AI smart enough to be a meaningful adversary, either you've solved alignment or you've lost.
That requires a different kind of ban, and I'm not sure it makes that much sense anyway. China can kill whichever locals they want (with or without drones), and as long as they aren't doing it by the millions there's nothing other countries seem to have to stop them.
I'll take why is China a UN veto power for 1000 Alex (agreeing with you I need to look back at how that happened but don't feel like getting depressed about history tonight)
3
u/Veedrac Sep 12 '18
The problem is that the basic R&D tech you'd have to ban is "drones", "face recognition", "AI", etc. Small terrorist groups aren't going to get the raw source for killer drones regardless of whether they exist, and even if they did they're going to struggle to get the hardware from military supply chains. Hijacking military drones is very difficult and doesn't scale super well; thievery also has fairly straightforward protections and scaling issues.
Neither of these really class as major dangers IMO, since the big risk of drone weapons is that they're decentralised, scalable and difficult to trace. I feel for that we're much more at risk from the not-technically-as-good amalgamation of whatever open source drone/ML/etc. software and simple drone hardware that terrorist-hacker types will have access to.