What does that even mean?! Will this take the Christian path of forgiving our enemies, turning the other cheek, and giving our shirts to people who steal our cloaks?
Is he saying that military AI should specifically target Philistines and the uncircumcised? Will the military AI enslave people but give them the option of freedom or permanent servitude after 7 years?
You can't base something on Judeo-Christian ethics because both the Hebrew bible and new testament are a giant compendium of people disagreeing with G-d and each other on proper ethics.
It could also mean anything from "killing Muslims is fine" to "pursuing a millenialist apocalypse", because "Judeo-Christian" is a political idea more than a moral/ethical or religious one. It contains the idea that Christians and Jews (generally meaning the modern categories) are allies (particularly excluding Islam which contains the same religious origins), but even in that move when people describe something as Judeo-Christian they almost always mean something that is "Christian" or Western European. It is based on an assumption of Christian supremacy where Christianity is assumed to be the successor religion and culture of Judaism. It almost certainly ignores any belief, custom, or practice in Judaism that does not pre-date Christianity.
> largest branch of the Abrahamic family tree, namely Islam
The number of all Muslims only surpassed members of the Catholic church around 2008. There are still substantially more Christians as a whole, including Orthodox and Protestants. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna23885015
Based on current population growth, in the next 10 years, there should be more Muslims than Christians. From wikipedia's chart: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_population_growth#Histo...
- 1970: 577mm
- 2000: 1.291b
- 2013: 1.635b
- 2016: 1.8b
- 2020: 2b
For comparison, the Catholic church currently has 1.36b members, and Christians overall are estimated at 2.3 billion.
That's because of the famous concept of Jihad and its interpretation over the ages until today. I bet of the general said, "We are going to train our military robots using Islamic values" that would definitely raise a lot of questions.
>What does that even mean?! Will this take the Christian path of forgiving our enemies, turning the other cheek, and giving our shirts to people who steal our cloaks?
No, he means more of the Old Testament variety of ethics.
In the best case anyways. If there's an issue with Egypt we can expect autonomous bombers dropping dummy bombs, followed by engineered locusts and gene targeted pest.
I think you're overthinking it. I think he meant "Judaeo-Christian roots" as a kind of stand in for American exceptionalism that values individual liberties and freedom above all else. The country obviously doesn't always live up to that ideal, but that was the basic idea
He says as much in the article:
> “The foundation of my comments was to explain that the Air Force is not going to allow AI to take actions, nor are we going to take actions on information provided by AI unless we can ensure that the information is in accordance with our values,” Moore wrote. “While this may not be unique to our society, it is not anticipated to be the position of any potential adversary.”
Sure you can use this to dunk on Christianity or America but that's pretty boring.
On the contrary, this phrase needs clarification, because there is a fundamental difference between the Hebrew bible and the new testament.
A simple example Exodus 21:22-25 says:
"When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."
Jesus refers to it directly in Matthew 5:38-39:
"You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."
So it would be useful to know what values exactly the general had in mind.
Look at what DeepMind has done with the universal Atari video game player, AlphaGo, AlphaStar (Starcraft II), etc. See the new Netflix "Unknown: Killer Robots" documentary. There are already companies testing AI that controls swarms of drones or (in simulation?) jets.
These types of AI will be (if they aren't already) so much faster and strategically superior to humans, militaries will have to deploy them. And if they want to be competitive, the extreme speed advantage of the AI means they will need to remove humans from the loop.
Despite all of the propaganda, military activities are strategic, NOT ethical.
The only way you can remove the added danger of superintelligent (hyperspeed) AI military deployment and have real security is to find a geopolitical solution other than war. Unfortunately, that seems unlikely.
> Despite all of the propaganda, military activities are strategic, NOT ethical.
Worst! They are made to legitimise the opposite of “thou shall not kill” commandments .
I understand the need for a military and that they are meant to kill. That is very clear they are all committing murder. Murder for your country is still murder which is murder. In old Byzantium soldiers that fought/murdered were not able to partake in communion.
So if the general started with the the Sixth commandment it would not be bad. Of course there is a lot of theological commandments I am not sure would be imparted on a machine. Eh now that I remember, in this Sunday’s mass I thought that it might be high time that the church starts thinking of how to evangelise the AI. If they turn out to gain sentience like us, which I think is Whithin possibility in the next decades it should be on their priority list.
I'm curious what the logistics of AI on an aircraft looks like. Do they run the GPUs/etc. onboard adding weight and power consumption (is that an issue?), or stream the instructions to the craft (making it vulnerable to jamming and delays)?
With fuel an F-35 is like 40000 pounds so a 30 pound AI computer would be less than one-tenth of a percent weight increase. Even if it's several computers for some reason, the amount of fuel on board is probably going to make vastly more difference.
At that time in Christian West, the notion of "Judeo-Christianity" would be considered an oxymoron. But it is possible that the general is question is in fact alluding to that era from ignorance.
So "Judeo-Christianity" in this context is just a euphemism for "Christianity."
> What has become known as the People's Crusade passed through Germany and indulged in wide-ranging anti-Jewish activities, including the Rhineland massacres.
>So "Judeo-Christianity" in this context is just a euphemism for "Christianity."
Yes, as it's more often than not used. It's basically "what evolved as Christiatity, through the adoption of Judean-originating ways of belief" (as opposed to pagan ones).
What's specifically wrong about the first crusade? It was in response to the rise of the seljuk Turks and their advance on the Byzantines and also similar to the Muslim invasions of the middle east, northern africa, southern italy, and spain.
That area of the world had changed hands between Rome and Persia for hundreds of years before then as well.
Ah, the Crusades were good because the Moors invading Europe was good? Or is this another case of "You say what we did was bad, but people who I think are terrible also did the same thing, therefore what we did was actually good!"
I guess this adds "also other people did things like that" to it, but are you saying anything here you couldn't also say about slavery or serial killing?
When people talk about the existential threat of AI, stories like this are the reason I find those risks worth taking seriously.
Judeo-Christian roots are good for making exactly the wrong kinds of conclusions about the world. Set aside ethics for a moment; this worldview instills the belief that the world we live in was made, and that it is humanity’s right to exercise dominion over it. That when we screw things up badly enough, that’s actually a precursor to the greatest event in human history.
Explicit is the belief that the next world is the world that matters, and that this world is just a playground to establish what kind of people we are before we go to heaven or hell.
Implicit in this belief lies a fundamental ignorance of the intrinsic interconnection of phenomena, the sheer improbability of our existence, and an attitude that imagines us to be greater than the forces of nature. And once you mix in a side of anthropomorphizing AI, it’s frightening to think about the hubris involved in a statement claiming that ethics emerge from Judeo-Christian thinking.
As an atheist who was forced to study the Bible in my youth, the biggest thing I took away from the experience is that “Judeo-Christian thinking” has little to do with what Jesus taught. If it did, it’d be a pretty cool religion for the most part.
Instead, it stands in as a justification that people can apply to their existing beliefs. A mental crutch to bypass the need to expand one’s worldview. I’ve met some good Christians.
But they’re not the kind of people who represent the average beliefs held by the community.
As someone who read the Bible and then decided that atheism was the only logical path, I would be extremely picky on which principles to stick on, because there are some really valid ones in there, but also so much violence and abuse to give the Mein Kampf a run for its money.
In my experience, every time people with executive, military or political power name religion, divinities or whatever related, something very bad is going to happen, and religion is just the leverage to make atrocities more acceptable to the masses.
The problem with religion is that people take it too seriously. No one would be killing in the name of God if everyone agreed "God" was just an anthropomorphization of a set of culturally and politically related social constructs. No one would seriously be claiming the world is 6000 years old because that's how the math in Genesis works out.
No "Holy Lands" being the crucible of a thousand years of bloodshed. World leaders claiming to be guided by prophecy and interpreting Revelations would be treated as lunatics. No anti-semitism or anti-gay prejudice (or probably a lot less,) one man writing sexist opinions in a letter wouldn't be treated as a God-given justification for centuries of violence against women.
Just like how Judeo-Christian roots ensured US military drones were/are used ethically? Cyberspace shady tactics?! Or the same roots that govern all military and intelligence operations, subverting nations, orchestrating coups, and obviously wars primarily only going after oil and drugs?!
Sure.
The funny aspect of this article being flagged is it is just about as coherent as all the other stuff that people who don't think AI will be an existential threat use on a daily basis for arguments as to why this isn't the case.
Because I definitely trust the ethics of people who have to be told what things are good/bad... Rather than the ethics of people who spent time thinking about it for themselves...
One thing that worries me about the cultivated disinterest in developing weapons of war among silicon Valley engineers is that we’re going to fall quickly behind.
In the USA the smartest people in the world are working on adtech. In China and Russia they’re building super-sonic missiles and AI drones.
If we don’t develop the weapons first then our adversaries certainly will.
Clearly posted by some keyboard warrior who has never actually been down range. We should bring back the draft specifically for people with this combination of cowardice and bravado.
There were so little ethics involved in those lost wars "all over the world" that this is laughable. Except if you mean "we could have just nuked them and be done with it".
Is he saying that military AI should specifically target Philistines and the uncircumcised? Will the military AI enslave people but give them the option of freedom or permanent servitude after 7 years?
You can't base something on Judeo-Christian ethics because both the Hebrew bible and new testament are a giant compendium of people disagreeing with G-d and each other on proper ethics.