Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
ELON MUSK IS leading demands for a global ban on killer robots, warning that technological advances could revolutionise warfare and create new “weapons of terror” that target innocent people.
The CEO of Tesla and SpaceX joined more than 100 robotics and artificial intelligence entrepreneurs in signing a letter to the United Nations (UN) calling for action to prevent the development of autonomous weapons.
“Lethal autonomous weapons threaten to become the third revolution in warfare,” warned the statement signed by 116 tech luminaries, also including Mustafa Suleyman, cofounder of Google’s DeepMind.
“Once developed, they will permit armed conflict to be fought at a scale greater than ever, and at timescales faster than humans can comprehend,” the letter reads.
The innovators also highlighted that the technology could fall into the wrong hands.
“These can be weapons of terror, weapons that despots and terrorists use against innocent populations, and weapons hacked to behave in undesirable ways,” the letter reads.
We do not have long to act. Once this Pandora’s box is opened, it will be hard to close.
Both Musk and British astrophysicist Stephen Hawking have regularly warned of the dangers of artificial intelligence (AI).
Melbourne conference
The renewed plea on autonomous weapons was released as the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Melbourne gets underway today, with a record 2,000 of the world’s top AI and robotics experts taking part, organisers said.
One expert said autonomous weapons could make war more likely.
“Today the potential loss of human life is a deterrent for conflict initiation and escalation, but when the main casualties are robots, the disincentives change dramatically and the likelihood of conflict increases,” Professor Mary-Anne Williams of the University of Technology Sydney said.
She warned a killer robot ban may be disregarded by some nations but would stop “countries such as Australia from developing defensive killer robots, thereby being vulnerable to other countries and groups that ignore the ban”.
Another expert said decisions made today would help shape the “futures we want”.
“Nearly every technology can be used for good and bad, and artificial intelligence is no different,” Professor Toby Walsh of the University of New South Wales said.
Organisers said the conference, which concludes on Friday, has attracted a record number of participants from China, reflecting a push by Beijing to become a leading player in the field.
A key focus of the event will be looking at the challenges of developing fully autonomous AI systems, programme chair Carles Sierra of the Spanish National Research Council said.
A UN group on autonomous weapons had been due to meet today but the gathering was postponed until November, according to the group’s website. In 2015, thousands of researchers and personalities launched an appeal to ban autonomous weapons.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Someone fancied Margaret Thatcher? ??
It’s beyond S&M.
explained by subsidised parliament bars.
Haughey probably did..
Her life long friend Jimmy Saville or one of the many, many, many perverts and creeps that were in her closest circle seemed to be fascinated by her power and aura rather than her angular blandness.
I too was shocked. Momentarily. Then I remembered this is the same class of people where it seems to have been not uncommon to be involved in paedophile rings, and for the files on the sick perverts to be ‘lost’ or locked away for a generation for ‘national security’.
Great marketing there by The Spectator. Job done.
No-ones appearance was critiqued more than Obamas. Plenty of columnists and articles called him gorgeous, sexy etc. People get judged on their appearance. Get over it.
No I think was it quite a tongue-in-cheek piece, and it could be extended to both sexes.
For instance, in Brian Cowan’s last months in power he looked so rough and had so little regard for his personal deportment that any discussion of him was inevitably going to centre on that, rather than his politics.So yes I do think politicians have a duty to not be personally grotesque.
Not to mention the caricature of him in some art gallery (or something along those lines) that caused some kind of consternation. That was also based on his appearance.
I think Ian Paisley passed some not complimentary comment about Brian Cowan too. If everyone was judged on how they look there would be very few electable politicians. It takes very immature journalists to try to pigeonhole people wholly on their looks.
Just as well they didn’t see spitting image isn’t it?
They also judged Ed Miliband on looks, they do it a lot in the British media so it’s no surprise it’s happening to more future Labour leaders. Corbyn is rocking his look though, they got nothing on him.
yeah, but when the same thing is done with women, it’s disgusting sexism, go figure
Some people see sexism in every shadow, it worsens the image of people who actually care about addressing sexism where it actually exists and makes their struggle for equality harder. No sexism here just piss poor journalism by the UK media.
Woo hoo finally some feminazi wankfodder, ‘rolls up sleeves’ bring on the professional umbrage takers!
Seriously though, anyone who doesn’t think this is an act of baiting as obvious as every word which comes from George hooks decrepit crooked gob, really does take themselves too seriously.
Well he’s not wrong. The truth might hurt in twitter land but you can’t have any old mucker leading a country.
You have to look presentable and statesman like. Obviously on top of having the ability to do the job.
So true were so lucky that Enda has it all..
If that’s the case lad, you might do well to quell your political aspirations.
Why Corky? Have your efforts of stalking me finally bore fruits for your labour?
Angela Merkel is the most powerful woman in the world and she is a minger.
I’m glad you got that in before me. Must root out the oul Maggie pics definitely missed something……feck it nah I won’t bother lmfao
Somebody likes video games … oh no! Another useless engagement detracting one from advancing in the meritocracy.
@EB: Spot on
@Corky – Who doesn’t like videogames?
@EB + Andrew – I never said that a person cannot become leader of country if they are ugly. Just that it becomes the lever point for criticism against them by the public.
Thatcher with her “Ding Dong The WItch Is Dead ” song was as much about her looks as much as her policies in the north of England.
Merkel is referred to often as “Herr Merkel”.
Mary Harney was always attacked over her weight issue.
Brian Cowen over his weight issues and slovenly appearance.
Michael D Higgins over his height and impish appearance.
Rarely do you hear cutting jibes about their policies. Its always about their looks. In order to get people to take you seriously as a leader it helps to be attractive or at least average.
what about iPhone Joan ? Does her omission confer attractiveness? Remember the little titchy sarcosi ? his wife was a former model Carla something!! And isn’t there an ex porn star going for election in Italy ? It might not be Italy but she’s probably got some eye candy appeal wherever it is.
The Ding Dong song for Maggie had nothing to do with her looks and everything to do with her heinous policies all over the UK and especially in Northern Ireland. Remove rock from over your head and breath in some fresh air.
Sure people such as yourself use a person’s appearance rather than their character as the subject of pejorative remarks. Lots of lads remain in the under 13′s mindset far into their prime. Can’t be helped – it’s just the nature of some e its. However, as these ugly, fat, whatever you want to call them folks do end up in authority positions, does that not blow your original contention right out of the water?
Two words for you: Brian. Cowen.
Liz Kendall is OK looking, but the fact that she and Cooper (who voted for the Iraq invasion) are Blairite warmongers is an unattractive trait to put it mildly.
based on appearances eh? I’ll never be leader of Ireland so, ah well back to me pint.
Down voted, I think you look lovely.
Margaret Thatcher rose to the very top because she was competant and comfortable in her own skin. When she encountered sexism and prejudice against her she took it in her stride and had good, light-hearted retorts.
These women who love to be offended make me roll my eyes. If they keep talking about being a women and constantly draw attention to the fact they are different then they will only remind people they are women. It’s like black comedians constantly making jokes about them being black. “Ok I know you’re black!”
I want to see female leaders who don’t fall into this hole. It makes men switch off and ignore/dislike them. Just shake it off, be able to take abit of political incorrectness on the chin and prove it doesn’t matter by demonstrating your competance. People will forget about your appearance and gender. Margaret Thatcher did that and she won the respect and admiration of men everywhere.
You said the word black, racist!
Comedians talk about what they know. Black comedians often use race, female comedians often use sex, gay comedians sexuality etc. If people didn’t laugh and find those topics amusing, they wouldn’t keep using them. Since they do laugh, comedians use them bencher that’s their effing job. Not exactly comparable to running a country or political party.
It isn’t a great analogy, but it does get tedious and annoying when you watch a non-white comedian walk out on the stage and you can predict that they will open with something about being an ethnic minority. Then when you think they’ve moved to a different topic it’s more unoriginal jokes about looking different.
The best people should get the best job, but often its the less bright who get on in life, simply because they look good leaving their more intelligent underdogs to prop them up.
And the answer is No……….
I’m not surprised they’re checking the eye candy if they’re getting in the based on the quota system. might as well look tasty when doing fcuk all else for the paycheck.
You’re just the kinda fella that Enda’s lovely girls are aimed at. :P
I don’t have a voting card and have never, ever, ever voted for any of these inept b**turds! its a great auld craic do to watch voting people scratch their heads and walk in circles when that big democratic D***k gets shoved up their collective ar**S. They never learn.
Why no voting card?
I’ll get a voting card when it actually means something other than a punch in card for economic slavery
And until then you’ll sit on your hole. Good man
Lovely sound bite Cynical…and that’s all it is….a sound bite. If you couldn’t be bothered to even vote then you have no reason to complain about those who are elected as you don’t take part in the process…..you’re just a hurler on the ditch, lot’s to say about the teams but have never togged out.
A waste of a vote.
Just because you and your girlfriend above are suffering from media induced Stockholm syndrome doesn’t mean we all are. And sound bites are no less true because the are concise. now get up off your knees and wipe your mouth . your masters looking for you at the neatest polling booth. enjoy voting for your own oppression numbskulls
And another thing Genius. you wouldn’t be so quick to tog out for a match when you knew the game was rigged in advance and you were going to loose no matter what so your logical fallacy of inconsistent comparison is just what is expected from a moron that votes.
Blah…blah….blah……excuses, excuses, excuses.
If it’s all so fixed, why do they try to destroy opposition using the media.
You’re so beaten…you won’t even stand up.
That would be the controlled opposition you are referring to is it ? and the state controlled media.? You had me going there for a minute. I thought you were smarter lol. I think we’d better leave it there then. ;)
That’s exactly the point!….they need media to control the vote because your vote does count. But if you’re sitting on your arse like you and not even voting against the consensus ie,.for Independents instead of main parties…..nothing will ever change.
What are you doing to make a difference?…. except grumbling in the privacy of your own home.
How are you affecting change?
keep dreaming al. meanwhile I’m pretty much off the grid as I goes except for taxes. that’ll be gone eventually. that’s how affect change al. You do it for yourself. no vote or politicians gonna do it for you. ever. so good luck with all that although I know the outcome. same S**t different a**hole.
So….you’re going to change the world by ignoring it……..duh!
“Be the change you want to see in the world!” Ghandi. but I guess it’s lost on you. Duh!
Ghandi didn’t change anything by hiding in his house like you, he was active politically…….but I guess that’s lost on you….duh!
I believe you have missed the point entirely Iol (facepalm!)
You don’t understand what Ghandi meant.
Peaceful Non Compliance; which is what I’ve been trying to get across to you all along? what do you think his meaning was “lets all go and vote chaps because the good people in charge respect democracy and will only act in our best interests as long as we vote for them.” What a laugh. you appear to be deluded so I am just going to point and laugh at your silly statements from now on. (point) lol.
Maggie Thatcher was good looking? Lol
As bad as Thatcher was, at least she was straight. You always knew where you stood with her, unlike our own Labour liars.
They all have lovely bottoms.
clearly it’s insulting to pigeonhole anyone running for office based on their looks. I think we can all agree on that. however it is still an empirical truth that looks carry a great deal of weight in general human interaction. Neither males nor females are immune to it. it’s not necessary for your looks to be attractive to succeed in politics, it is necessary however to look trustworthy. there are many studies that demonstrate this. one that I can remember investigates beards. Apparently a clean shaven man is judged more trustworthy and competent than one who is not before anything else is taken into account. it’s stupid to suggest that this article was akin to some lads mag judging who is hotter. it was also stupid to only consider female leadership looks – which is clearly sexist. if this had been a comparison of any party leaders leadership appearance it would have been appropriate and thought provoking. Looks do matter they are the first thing one uses to judge others, even if it is purely on how well groomed and together one is
Looks have been a crucial part of political life since at least the 60′s. The Nixon-Kennedy debate was the first to show this. Radio listeners were much more likely to be impressed with Nixon, while the TV audience sided with Kennedy. Nixon had recently been ill and looked fairly shook, while Kennedy looked more at ease, confident and healthy. Basically Kennedy’s appearance swung the debate for him due to television being in the ascendency.
OK, it’s not the be all and end all but it definitely helps if a woman is attractive.
Nothing worse than looking at a bad pair of legs during a political debate.
never got past liz bonnin not to mind getting as far as yvette
have your say