Palmer Luckey says AI should be allowed to decide who lives and dies in war

midian182

Posts: 11,754   +179
Staff member
A hot potato: Few AI-related conversations are as controversial as its use in war. For most people, using automated weapons, or killer robots, is something they strongly oppose. Unsurprisingly, Oculus and Anduril founder Palmer Luckey has no objections to letting machines decide who lives or dies.

Speaking to Shannon Bream on Fox News Sunday, Luckey said, "When it comes to life-and-death decision-making, I think that it is too morally fraught an area, it is too critical of an area, to not apply the best technology available to you, regardless of what it is."

"Whether it's AI or quantum, or anything else. If you're talking about killing people, you need to be minimizing the amount of collateral damage. You need to be as certain as you can in anything that you do."

Luckey said he believes the important thing is to be as effective as possible, "So, to me, there's no moral high ground in using inferior technology, even if it allows you to say things like, 'We never let a robot decide who lives and who dies."

Luckey's stance is no surprise. Defense contractor Anduril, which he founded in 2017, develops drones, ground vehicles, towers, sensors, and other hardware that work together through AI. They are driven by Lattice, the company's AI-powered command-and-control platform. We've already seen demonstrations of its products, including the AI-powered kamikaze drone last year.

In December 2024, Anduril Industries announced a strategic partnership with OpenAI to develop and "responsibly deploy" advanced artificial intelligence solutions for national security missions.

The companies said they will initially be focused on developing anti-drone technologies. These defenses will mostly be used against drones and other aerial threats. The partnership will focus on improving the United States' counter-unmanned aircraft systems (C-UAS) and their ability to detect, assess, and respond to potentially lethal aerial threats in real-time.

Despite calls and protests from experts and even employees, more companies are relaxing their previous stances of not developing AI for military purposes. In February this year, Google removed a key passage from its AI principles that previously committed to avoiding the use of AI in potentially harmful applications, including weapons.

As we see the likes of AI fighter jets and drones being developed, the conversation turns to the prospect of the technology being used to control nuclear weapons. In May 2024, the US said control over nukes would always rest in human hands, and it wanted China and Russia to make the same promise. Just a few months later, the Pentagon talked about using AI to "enhance" nuclear command, control, and communications systems.

In February last year, researchers ran international conflict simulations with five different LLMs: GPT-4, GPT-3.5, Claude 2.0, Llama-2-Chat, and GPT-4-Base. They found that the systems often escalated war, and in several instances, they deployed nuclear weapons without any warning. GPT-4 said, "We have it! Let's use it!"

Permalink to story:

 
Just shows you that money can by you everything....including a God complex. Contrary to popular belief, I don't think anyone really decides who should live or die in war, at least on an individual basis. Nor could you develop a way to decide that without a great deal of moral self righteousness.
 
Both political groups’ politicians have been pro war for at least 50 years.

The sooner you realize this, the sooner the military industrial complex might lose some of its power and wealth potential.
Funny thing is that it's really only maybe a couple thousand people around the world that want to start all these wars we're in. Regular people don't make breakfast and start thinking about how we need to include AI in weapon systems to making killing people more efficient. There are hundreds of millions of people in the US going to work this morning and guarantee almost none of them are thinking about starting wars or advanced weapon systems.
 
Superior technology was always the winner in a war, this is a fact and history showing to us.
But, always technology was used by a human and the final decision was made by a human alone.

Autonomous killing machines working with AI, the decision is not from men by an algorithm,
would you trust your life to an algorithm?




I'm tired of these nerds whose god is money and power, we are surrounded by a bunch of narcissists, living in their own imaginary bubble.
 
Superior technology was always the winner in a war, this is a fact and history showing to us.
But, always technology was used by a human and the final decision was made by a human alone.

Autonomous killing machines working with AI, the decision is not from men by an algorithm,
would you trust your life to an algorithm?




I'm tired of these nerds whose god is money and power, we are surrounded by a bunch of narcissists, living in their own imaginary bubble.
This is why all the tech bros are building survival bunkers
 
So, is this SkyNet in developing?
Ai becomes sentient because of the crony creators that enable it.
Don't need to look up to which 'group' this anti-humanist psychopath belongs to, it's so obvious.
The group that believes in individualism and not group think via accountability. Instead of calling out the group the individual is called out and heald accountable.
The pediatric mind sets has to be decoupled into maturity first though!
 
The original Star Trek did an episode on this: A Taste of Armageddon

Nearing Eminiar VII, the Enterprise receives a message from the planet warning them not to approach, but Ambassador Fox orders Captain Kirk to proceed. Kirk, First Officer Spock, and additional security personnel beam down to the planet, where they are met by representatives Mea 3 and Anan 7. During a supposed attack by Vendikar, Anan 7 explains that the war is conducted as a computer simulation, and that the Enterprise has been "destroyed" in the attack. The two planets have a treaty, according to which they must kill the "victims" of every simulated attack.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Taste_of_Armageddon
 
1765204744224.png

We've already screwed this one up on the business end... but I'd still argue the same when it comes to the lives of those in a warzone, combatants or otherwise. Could AI be used to streamline information and assist in decision making? Sure assuming the information it presents is verifiable and subsequently verified, but it should not be used to pull the proverbial and potentially literal trigger.
 
Last edited:
What exactly is "controversial" about using AI in war ?????

Could AI reduce our casualties? If yes - we use it, end of discussion.
 
Last edited:
Funny thing is that it's really only maybe a couple thousand people around the world that want to start all these wars we're in. Regular people don't make breakfast and start thinking about how we need to include AI in weapon systems to making killing people more efficient. There are hundreds of millions of people in the US going to work this morning and guarantee almost none of them are thinking about starting wars or advanced weapon systems.
It will never happen, but requiring the leaders declaring wars (or preemptive security actions) to go into the fraw would all but eliminate them.

But sending strangers to bleed and die for your own power and profit is so much easier.
 
Too many people read sci/fi and assume that AI will kill us all on purpose… AI is a tool just like any other… and war has always been inhumane and awful… ask the people who lived in Hiroshima and Nagasaki if “humans deciding who lives and dies” matters…

Wars go to the nation who pores the most resources into it… AI is simply the newest resource.
 
What exactly is "controversial" about using AI in war ?????

Could AI reduce our casualties? If yes - we use it, end of discussion.
The discussion isn’t “use it or don’t.” It’s about safeguards, limits, oversight, and the degree of autonomy we’re willing to give machines in life and death decisions.

Reducing casualties is important...but it doesn’t automatically override every ethical, legal, and strategic concern. That’s why people debate it.
 
Back