>>/78749/
I do understand your concern, it is a dangerous conundrum. It reminds me why so many people own guns honestly. I own guns for various reasons: collecting, pest control around the homestead, seldom times hunting with a friend or relatives, but most of all conceal carry and personal self-defense and defense of private property. Would I ever wish to use a gun against another human being? Hell no! I prefer people being peaceful and respectful of others. The hard truth is many people are not and some can be very dangerous. There are the scumbags that will rob homes and commit armed robberies. There are the perverts that will kidnap and rape your kids or wife. There are the types who hold grudges for what-ever stupid reason and want to harm you or destroy your property. Why on Earth would we not have something to defend ourselves and our properties when clearly criminal scumbags do exist and will always exist? Now consider these kinds of problems on a global level. US attacking Vietnam, US bombing Iran, Israel bombing Lebanon and Gaza, Russia invading Ukraine, NATO violently taking over Yugoslavia, the potential of China taking over Taiwan in the future..... We tried international laws before after WWII. The UN security council. Nuremberg trials. Treaties. Memorandums. Outlawing genocide and war crimes. The ICC (International Crimes Court). Who has ever been held responsible? When has international law ever stopped hostile actors? What if hostile nations choose not to obey an AI or even cooperate? That is the biggest conundrum, changing human behavior, holding hostile actors accountable. Better yet, the AI is only as competent as the ones who program it. Who is to make sure the AI is 100% unbias in it's decision making?