More than 200 human rights and civil society organizations are calling on governments and tech companies to stop the use of AI for military purposes, warning that it turns war into a "death conveyor" without sufficient legal frameworks and transparency.
And how is that false equivalence to an algorithm running on a bunch of transistors?
because the point of my example is that neither case works like that. you can’t sue weapons, you sue those who commanded their use. you can’t sue transistors… and what does that mean? it means you sue those that commanded the use of AI assisted weapons.
common sense, really.
Reread the thread and point out anywhere you get even the slightest impression that I disagree with what you just wrote…
I read this as implying whwt I say does not make sense:
A - it’s a bad semiconductor pun
B - who in their right mind would think that a transistor is a legitimate target of a lawsuit?
C - all “AI” is is a pile of transistors with various charge states representing the software layers. It was built by people, same as a Smith & Wesson 38, nobody is suing the guns for people they’re killing, either, not even when they have fault sights and hit unintended targets.
someone who wants to intentionally misunderstand the situation, wrecking the discussion. I’m not saying you did that, but it’s not rare on forums like this.