[discoball]

The right to bear arms was given to humans who happen to live in this so-called freedom loving country. It was never given to autonomous non-human entities. So while the military may develop robotic kill squads their non-military use is illegal. Unless the treasonous Supreme Court doubles down on their treason and give the right to bear arms to AI, by considering AI to be a digital person with rights. It could happen. The Supreme Court judges have already shown that they're fully capable of making decisions that favor big corporations over us the people. Why not autonomous bots? After all, big enough corporations are pretty much autonomous (as they follow profit above all and do so regardless of who is in charge of them).

[shard972]

Seems like it could go either way, its not like the bots themselves need the rights or become legal entities beyond a weapon.

Now maybe this weapon fires by you telling it to shoot that guy over there, or it's programmed to shoot anyone who enters through that door over there, but in the end it's still a weapon under control and responsibility of the owner.

[discoball]

What you describe is not Autonomous AI that is driven by a dynamic mission, as the military AI will be. An AI killer bot can be developed that not only tries to achieve the goal specified by the mission but also alter the mission as needed to achieve a higher level goal, and the higher you go up in the goal specification the more autonomy you're giving to the machine.

[PeterisP]

How do you go from "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" to an assumption that this somehow limits "autonomous non-human entities"?

The default situation with rights for people is essentially "everything is permitted unless it has been explicitly forbidden by the laws", with the added restrictions of what the government shall not ever forbid.

If the government does nothing, autonomous non-human entities have the right to bear arms - it doesn't need to be given, it's sufficient if it hasn't been taken away. Since the second amendment does not apply to such entities, the government can freely restrict these rights if it chooses to, but currently it has not.

[discoball]

Live and learn!

[dev_north_east]

> treasonous Supreme Court

How is it treasonous?

[discoball]

They allowed corporations to vote with their money and buy candidates. Undermined our ”By the People. For the People” fantasy.