A classic of the genre:
While we know the world will change with the advent of new digital weapons, we don’t know nearly enough about how they are going to be used. For example, we don’t know the details of what will happen if truly autonomous robots capable of collecting massive amounts of data and making their own lethal targeting decisions are tied into the computer networks that govern every aspect of our lives. We don’t know what weapons they will use, we don’t know how much autonomy they will have, we don’t know how interconnected with our civilian networks they will be, we don’t know which rules of engagement they will operate under, we don’t know who will be allowed to develop and use them, and in the long run, we don’t know how they will be kept subservient to humans.
This evidently seems realistic to at least one person:
Preventing this scenario means that the Pentagon, intelligence agencies, contractors, lawmakers, NGOs, and the media must foster vigorous and open discussions of weapons being developed and the rules that will govern their use. It’s not good enough to write broad speeches and policy papers outlining governments’ desire to develop such weapons. We must decide, as a society, with as much clarity as possible how these technologies will be developed and used.
“The Pentagon must …”
“Lawmakers must …”
“DOD, private businesses, and Congress much [sic]”
“Finally, the media must …”
(As I suspected.)