this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2026
170 points (99.4% liked)

Technology

86468 readers
2902 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
170
Over 200 organizations call for a ban on "artificial intelligence" in military kill chains (burgasmedia.com)
submitted 1 month ago by sanitation@lemmy.today to c/technology@lemmy.world
16 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Sue a transistor, see how it conducts itself.

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

false equivalence. that's like saying in defense of war crimes, sue the weapons and war vehicles, and see how they defend themselves in court.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 2 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

And how is that false equivalence to an algorithm running on a bunch of transistors?

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Reread the thread and point out anywhere you get even the slightest impression that I disagree with what you just wrote...

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I read this as implying whwt I say does not make sense:

Sue a transistor, see how it conducts itself.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 weeks ago

B - who in their right mind would think that a transistor is a legitimate target of a lawsuit?

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.